Harry's Place

When I heard Ken’s gracious admission of defeat – no lashing out, no blaming anyone but himself – I thought of the lines from Macbeth:-

Nothing in his life
Became him like the leaving it.

Ken was great I thought, throughout the whole campaign, including his speech when he lost. It’s a shame so many of his supporters were such gits, not including anyone here. He ought to run for leadership of the Labour Party, that would be interesting.

And of course if I see any anti Bojo graffiti in TW1 I’ll be the first to let you know.

I wish I’d thought of writing that on a sign in that location now!

(Purely so David T would take a photograph of it, of course.)

Because, and I know it will annoy the Labour Party loyalists here (or some of them, anyway) I don’t think THAT – I wish Boris well, and I hope he will prove to be as excellent a mayor as Ken, by and large, was. (I have my doubts, on the grounds that any politician popular in Bromley or Barnet, let alone both, isn’t likely to be much to my taste, or share my views as to what sort of thing a Mayor of London should be doing, but we shall see).

And, although it will again annoy some of the Labour Party loyalists here (in fact, probably most of them), I think one of the things that may help Boris succeed is exactly one of the things that enabled Ken to do such a good job, by and large: his semi-independence from his party machine.

In fact, in large part, I thought that Boris’s acceptance speech in many regards could have been written and spoken by Ken.

In any case, you may be assured that I would be happy to add the names of all the elected representatives of SS0 (complete non-entities the lot of them) to that expletive on that sign. I’d far rather that Bozza was Mayor of Southend (and that such a position existed) than any of the existing lot. I’m still unconvinced he’s up to taking on London, but I hope I’m wrong.

I suppose George Galloway is the real anti-Coriolanus. Coriolanus would definitely not have appeared on Big Brother.

Unpopular in OX1 as well, from the looks of things, where Chris Brooke and his trendy pseudo-liberal friends dominate the scenes. There is something vaguely vomit-inducing about over-privileged and closeted academic poseurs pretending to give a toss about the working classes. The anti-Boris campaign conducted by various shady clerical conglomerates was every bit as nasty, vitriolic, and polemical, as that which Livingstone faced.

For Brooke and his High Table friends, political landscapes are interpreted through their experiences of the juvenile world of campus politics and undergraduate posturing. Time will tell whether Johnson is less an enemy of the people than Livingstone.

I a happy that I no longer live, or work in London. I was there when KL became “leader” of the GLC. And as a Party Member I watched him take credit for others work, like David Wetzels transport policies, and make Labour unelectable in the home counties.

I hae little regret that Londoners kicked him out, but “Boris”, well words fail me ! I fear this buffoon will epitomise the Tory Party.

Of course, one of the key points about Coriolanus, which neither you nor the Virtual Stoa mention in the pieces you quote, is that his vanity and contempt for the people who are his constituency lead him to go over to the side of his country’s enemies and help them in their war against his own country. Notwithstanding his stirring words on 7th July, Livingstone’s track record was to cuddle up to so many enemies of what a free, liberal and genuinely multicultural London stands for, and give our money to them and their mouthpieces….

where he argues that the only thing that can save Labour is Livingstone-style policies! Quite hilarious. He should be in the business of selling Tower Bridge to tourists….

Lovely to see the Labour-voting section of the denizens of Hackney reacting to the result with the good grace that (to his credit) Ken showed in defeat.

where he argues that the only thing that can save Labour is Livingstone-style policies!

Nah. What we need is Judy telling us that we should all apologise to her for supporting ken and then getting all hissy about us when we remind her she has inflicted a Bullingdon clun Mayor on us.

Ridiculous fool.

Shame-us Milne is not a serious commentator. His drivel is designed chiefly to stir outrage, in so doing to bring more visits and therefore advertising revenue to the Grauniad’s online site. Steer well clear.

Has HP’s resident Borisphobe, Graham, been seen heading north with a can of spray paint?

“Borisophobe” I would think.

And God no you won’t see me in north London unless David T has another party.

(Can’t wait for “Boriosphobia watch” :-)

Judy

You are quite right.

David T. Again i say, you have neither read nor seen Coriolanus if you come to this conclusion:

What would it have cost Coriolanus to play the game, show his wounds, treat his supporters kindly?

You genuinely think that a mob requesting to see war wounds is a good thing?

Surely the whole point is that Coriolanus is refusing to play the political game, even though he understand that it will cost him dearly.

custom calls me to’t:–
What custom wills, in all things should we do’t,
The dust on antique time would lie unswept,
And mountainous error be too highly heap’d
For truth to o’erpeer.

It might have been politically advantageous for coriolanus to display his war wounds, but note that word – TRUTH. What does HP stand for ‘telling people what they don’t want to hear’. all of a sudden you have abandoned this apparently all-important ‘fact’ about liberty?

Your search – Borisophobia – did not match any documents.

Piss!

Ken is more like Lear than any other Shakespearian character. He was trying to satisfy three spoilt daughters; only one of which (the London working-class) truly (like Cordelia) loved him. His misjudgement of the other daughter (the fickle bruschetta set and the Blairite Labour party) brings about his downfall.

You have to admit, it wasn’t a wise decision. Nor was it a necessary one.

I concede nothing in my contempt for Boris Johnson.

I am now the proprietor of borisjohnsonwatch!

contributions welcomed

I am now the proprietor of borisjohnsonwatch!

contributions welcomed

I fear mod that this may turn out to be too much work for one man to handle.

Graham,

I think you’re right about that, but I think Johnson should be subject to scrutiny, and I hate the Tories.

Well Johnson plans to run London like Athens under Pericles apparently so we can expect a couple of wars against Egypt and Delphi before his final battle against the Conservatives and his daughter becoming a prostitute.

Well, mod, far from me to encourage this sort of thing, but a far greater range of pieces from the archives of the Spectator are available online from their website for free than used to be the case….if you were looking for dirt on the New Mayor you could certainly find some there…

I did vaguely consider writing a piece for HP smearing Boris in the run up to the election liberally illustrated with quotes from some gems published during his reign…

but, you know, just as (erm, IMHO) Cardinal Ratzinger’s elevation to the Papacy has brought out the best in him (and alleviated the concerns of many who were alarmed at the news of his appointment), I’d like to hope that Boris having a position of serious (but obviously lesser, compared with that) responsibility would have an appoximately similar effect on him.

(We’ll see about “Dignity of Office” in time, I suppose: Ken certainly did
not always live up to that, indeed disgracefully not at times)

Meanwhile, is anyone taking bets on who the first member of city hall staff/and or/ the Mayoral office/ and/or the GLA team to be physically punched by Richard “Shatov”* Barnbrook might be?

*I think, but am not absolutely certain yet, that this is the Dostoyevsky character that this unpleasant character most resembles, but I am open to other suggestions. Not that Shatov ever made “Hello, Sailor!” type movies, of course.

Funny my Central heating Engineer was saying the very same thing about Coriolanous as Judy, just the other day.

The Maid however would have none of it,, she launched in to this diatribe before bustling off and singing ‘Pirate Jenny’ in German (der Schiff mit acht segeln)

‘load of old hogwash’ she retorted ‘typical aristocratic morality play substituting ethnic loyalty, patriotism and treachery for genuine issues of democratic concern, Judy well you’re posh so that figures but Marek, a plumber like you should be ashamed of yourself parroting such pseudo history, false consciousness I call it’

‘Plutarch was just plagiarising for analogical effect the story of Themistocles and Livy well he was a propagandist for Ceasar Augustus who not only was the first Roman Emporor megalomaniac, totalitarian dictator , plebeian populist of the worst ‘bread and circuses’ kind but was also born in the Volscian town of Velitrae’

‘Jesus weapt, you can sit through all that Snide Shakespearian humour of the plebeians as fickle and vulgar and still feel that Coriolanus was the anti-democratic patrician when it is an obvious hysterical smear campaign by that that jealous bitch Aufidis.

The whole play is a revolting spectacle of the self serving ideology of emergent Capitalism and possessive individual greed worked up as a populist pretence of concern for the common man,, all bloody Tories anyway you look at it’

Ven,

I am interested in politics and current affairs, not tittle-tattle.

I would expect Tory voters to welcome Boris and support him, but I think that *all* politicians should to be kept under scrutiny and particularly anyone who is Mayor.

Mod,

I realise that your interests are serious, rather than frivolous – and there is certainly stuff in the Spectator archives which could show rather questionable judgement (on non-frivolous matters) on BJ’s part as editor.

My reluctance to gather such stuff together in the pre-election season, having first given the question some consideration, resulted from a desire to give someone a chance – based on their present position and activity, rather than what they did several years ago in a semi-private (or at any rate not public-service) capacity. What’s past is past, and all that.

I don’t doubt that your site will prove to be rather better in content and more intelligent in tone than other similar “-watch” sites that spring immediately to mind.

One might hope for London’s rather loathsome evening newspaper to conduct some scrutiny of the mayor, but, as this seems unlikely, I imagine that less well-financed or well-established outlets will have a role to play too.

There is something vaguely vomit-inducing about over-privileged and closeted academic poseurs pretending to give a toss about the working classes.

Yes, and we’re going to have to put up with one as Mayor for the next four years.

Yes, and we’re going to have to put up with one as Mayor for the next four years.

Very true. But there is no point in being like Hamlet and moping about because your mother has married a murderer. The point is to act and rid Elsinore of the infection.

Ven,

Thanks for the suggestion, I couldn’t face reading the Speccy archives, but as you point out it is from NOW on that Boris needs to be watched as Mayor.

as for quality, we’ll see, depends on if I have the energy or brains to write, we’ll see how it develops.

Is this your blog?

http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/

nope,

I’m here http://borisjohnsonwatch.wordpress.com/wp-admin/ and at borisjohnsonwatch@googlemail.com

Coriolanus’ flaw is his utter lack of hubris.
[...]
Ken in defeat had the hubris that the Roman could not conjure up

You’ve confused hubris with humility. If there’s one thing Coriolanus didn’t lack, it’s hurbis.

That aside, Coriolanus’ flaw is not his lack of humility – it is not his idea to run for consul and he’s reluctant to do it, for instance. It’s his intemperance, his inability to listen to or tolerate any kind of opposition or criticism, which ultimately leads him to betray everything he has ever fought for. (If I squint really hard, I can just about see some comparison with Ken here, to the extent that after decades of getting battered by the media he lumps any and all criticism together as just another attack.)

His second major flaw is his opposition to (what passes in the play for) democracy – his belief in the rightness of patrician rule, and in the notion that those who have served in the military and entitled to power and privilege over those who haven’t (an idea championed more recently by the sci-fi author Robert Heinlein, and the very antithesis of Ken).

As with your list of “weid and nasty” reasons not to vote for Ken, I think the Corionalus critique can be far better applied to Blair than to Ken.

ops, that should be:

I’m here http://borisjohnsonwatch.wordpress.com/ and at borisjohnsonwatch@googlemail.com

This Coriolanus thing is overdone.

There are massive factors such as the economy, 8 years of incumbency, general anti-Labour swing, and the swing of the political pendulum. Livingstone may be flawed, but not any more than any other politician and the thing is not up there on the level of Coriolanus as some sort of “tragedy”. That seems absurd.

I’m posh, am I? Well, goodness me. My income’s well below the national average; I live in a two bedroom flat. I work in classrooms. I run a small secondhand car. I grew up in the heart of Stepney, the daughter of penniless Yiddish-speaking refugees from the Nazis, where our tiny home had no bathroom, no indoor loo, and no hot water. Once a month or so, I pay a local oddjob pensioner to do some garden work for me.

Do you really think Ken Livingstone, Gordon Brown, Tony Benn and any other hero or anti-hero of the left does all, or even any of, their own gardening?

If someone like me counts as posh in your reckoning (and in the charming words of Graham, a fool not to be listened to), I’m sure Labour can look forward to another very long period in opposition.

Gregg – thanks. I was thinking of both hubris and humility and conflated the phrases. Will correct.

I am now interested in the detailed results across London, which I am expecting will be published by Ward in a week or so.

The unreported story was the collapse of the UKIP vote, which was substantial four years ago. That was a key part of the very high turnout for the Conservatives on the edge of London. A high turnout in places where there are already Conservative MPs means nothing for the next General Election.

Will those detailed figures show higher Tory than Labour votes where there are Labour MPs? Not many if the Labour success in Enfield and Haringey and in Brent and Harrow are meaningful. Despite losing the Mayor and consequent fears for public transport, economic opportunities, policing and community cohesion the London results were better for Labour than most of England and Wales. Not bad for Britain’s most right-wing big city.

I was in Clissold Park yesterday. Elsewhere there was a similar message, only i was an extended version. It read:

Fuck Boris
Vote 4 Jesus

I think we can conclude that these graffiti were not left by Diane Abbott.

Thank goodness I don’t live in N16, nor to my knowledge have I ever been there. I’ll stick to W1 thanks.

I too was going to mention that Coriolanus ends up betraying Rome.
How does that fit into the Ken narrative…other than his history as a devious shit, that is.

I’m not going to re-read Coriolanus at present, so am relying on memory and an RSC production which had him dressed up as a fascist – but that’s the RSC for you.

I’d always thought Coriolanus the kind of war hero that didn’t want to do the equivalent of talking to Ant and Dec about his sex life if that was the price for achieving political power. The demos in Coriolanus are a fairly fickle bunch, as the demos is in Julius Caesar.

Shakespeare, living under an absolute monarchy, seemed to have a strong suspicion of the mob and the indignities of democratic politics, as portrayed in his Roman plays.

I’d forgotten Judy’s point about going over to the enemy in a fit of pique.

A better comparison from classical theatre might be Edward II (Marlowe rather than Shakespeare) brought low by having the wrong kind of favourites so pissing off his usual courtiers, who turn against him.

Fortunately we live in gentler times so he won’t end up like Ed II.

(and in the charming words of Graham, a fool not to be listened to)

Ah well I’m not known for charm. But you are only foolish (in my view) on the subject of KL. You talk a whole lot of sense on virtually everything else.

I was thinking of both hubris and humility and conflated the phrases. Will correct.

you are yet to correct it, and this clanger proves once again that you’ve never read, nor seen, Coriolanus.

Starting to regret the comparison between Coriolanus and Ken yet?

Have a look at the juxtaposition of images and textt on the MPACUK’s website under the headline:

‘The BNP’s Second Favourite Candidate’
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4593/

Unlike Coriolanus, I don’t think Livingstone’s longer term record stands up to the comparable status of a national hero. His early career includes support of the WRP and its Libyan connections, support for IRA terrorists, and the cuddling up to ultra left demagogues and repressive dictators goes way back to his Lambeth days. His demagoguery of those days was just as crude if not more crude as it was in these last years–if he didn’t like your politics, you were a fascist, a racist or a tool of the great zionist/Mossad conspiracy(or if you were connected to the Jewish Board of Deputies, all three). And unlike Coriolanus, he had a very long track record of stabbing his colleagues and his party in the back.

That’s enough stretched Coriolanus comparisons (Ed).

David T merely wanted to build a unified field theory that would bring in his pet newt called Coriolanus, Ken Livingstone and a defeat at the polls.

Ken is more like Lear than any other Shakespearian character

I’d say he’s more like Bottom, with the enchantment now worn off voters.

Or, if we must cast him as a tragic figure (he isn’t), Othello with his seduction by advisors and his secret love (of newts).

David T merely wanted to build a unified field theory that would bring in his pet newt called Coriolanus, Ken Livingstone and a defeat at the polls.

and it went spectacularly badly.

I’d say he’s more like Bottom, with the enchantment now worn off voters.

No place for “rude mechanicals” at court anymore – that’s for sure!

stop blogging you sad gits and enjoy the beautiful sunshine on this May bank holiday as I am going to now.

I’m off to the Greenwich May fayre (I firstly typed “mayor fayre”) just as soon as Mrs G can be dragged off the other computer.

We are promised face painting and green men on stilts.

Judy

Blimey, you really do have it in for Livingstone. It’s strange; he’s gone. I think one of the enduring ironies is that Livingstone’s policies were actually quite moderate; London’s economy did okayish, there were little social democratic tweaks here and there. The London Living Wage, which was a great development, environmental policies, and tentative pushes towards more social housing.

I think there was well targeted campaign to vilify him personally and use wedge issues, which reminds me of US style politics at its worst, but his policies were so moderate, you might not see such a great difference in Boris’s. That’s the irony. But the differences may be important to those affected by them.

I think there was well targeted campaign to vilify him personally and use wedge issues, which reminds me of US style politics at its worst

Which (let us remind ourselves) didn’t work as his vote went up. All that was achieved by the endless bickering about the WRP in the seventies and the attempts to suggest Ken was Al Qaeda’s rep in London was that some of us now have a very great suspicion that many of our erstwhile allies are not quite all there. Boris won because the Tories mobilised the suburbs – end of story.

How Livingstone’s personal vote can be kept is something the Labour party really need to work on. If they don’t give inner London a credible (really credible – not what they see as credible) candidate next time then the Livingstone vote could be slashed by more than half.

I think there was well targeted campaign to vilify him personally and use wedge issues, which reminds me of US style politics at its worst, but his policies were so moderate, you might not see such a great difference in Boris’s.

And, as Benji almost concedes, you could say the same about Johnson (with the name changed at the end. And I think the Guardian’s string of ‘vote for Ken or civilisation will end’ had about as much impact the Standard’s ‘end the Newt’s reign of terror’ articles. (ie none. They just reflected a widespread concern about the respective candidates).

On reflection, I think Boris on reason won because he seemed to be an anti-politician: ie he tapped into the widespread resentment against the caste of professional politicians (Tory, Labour and Lib Dem alike) who seem to be disconnected from the real world. Of course, this used to be part of Ken’s appeal, but after eight years in office you tend to lose that mantle.

I think it’s a mistake to try and make this disenchantment a middle class vs working class issue as it runs deep across both groups and many of the concerns – cost of living, housing, transport etc (I’m afraid immigration’s one too) – and the perception that politicians are disconnected with these worries are widespread across both these extremely broad groups. I floated his name in a previous thread, but from this perspective Jon Cruddas would, as things stand, be Labour’s best mayoral bet in four years’ time.

I think within 2 years people will be baying for Ken to come back, sort out the Olympics legacy and the final implementation of Cross Rail. He should get a couple of years rest, hang out with his kids and keep his profle high in London and the national media as a whole. 3 Years (the start of the next London mayoral campaign) is not a long time. He’ll be rested and ready to go, minus all the Jasper crap and exhasution that besetted him this time….

Boris won on the vote in Bromley alone, where he had a majority of almost 80,000. Those of us old enough to remember will recognise it was Bromley which scupperred the GLC’s cheap fares policy back in the 1980’s by taking the GLC to court and obtaining a ruling against supplementary rates levied for particular purposes.

And, as Benji almost concedes, you could say the same about Johnson (with the name changed at the end.

I think Johnson had quite an easy ride up until the last few days. The Guardian is not read by many Londoners and does not have headline boards and advertising at every major transport hub like the Standard does. But the Standard campaign (which lets face it was far more vicious than anything Ass newspapers ever threw at Hitler) ended up doing little to defeat Ken who lost not a single vote of ordinary Londoners because of it (although its journalists will think they won the campaign it was more down to Golf club tories in places like Bromley ferrying their supporters to the polling stations.)

Bromley by the way is an awful place which really does not belong in London at all.

For those interested in the question of media influence, here’s Andrew Gilligan himself on the Standard.

“I wrote most of the stories Polly and Jonathan hated so much, and this I know: it was not The Sun wot won it in 1992, and it was not the Standard wot won it for Boris in 2008.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/andrew-gilligan-it-was-not-the-standard-wot-won-it-for-boris-821013.html

It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Gilligan eventually turns on Boris (I have a suspicion he will. Simon Heffer, another hack who owes a certain debt of gratitude to Johnson, already has). Though, of course, it’ll hardly matter in the scheme of things.

Check out the blogroll at Boriswatch.co.uk.

I see Ken as that white rabbit from the Hamas video.

If you believe the latest reports in the papers Boris is either a) a very clever man who has been underestimated and will show everyone he can hack it or b) a complete buffoon who will have to let the Tory party run London as he couldn’t run the proverbial p–s up in a brewery. (The footnote to view b) is that London will now be used as some sort of test bed laboratory for a Conservative government nationally.)

I think both of these views are actually true and wide of the mark at the same time. These same characteristics can co-exist in one person as they do indeed in him indoors (Mr Ben) who reminds me a lot of Boris, not physically but temperamentally. Mr Ben is a clever chap (a mathematician by training, he routinely does Killer Sudokus for light relaxation and is a very good bridge player). He can grasp complex ideas very fast, he has an encyclopaedic memory. He is engaging, funny, opinionated, loyal and totally honest.

He is also at the same time, hopelessly absent minded, forgetful, clumsy, chronically late, and completely lacks any sort of administrative skills which makes him appear unreliable and disorganised. Excel spread sheets bring him out in a rash. He could not, by his own admission, manage his way out of a paper bag.

So how will Boris manage? Last year another political maverick, the former country singer turned best selling crime writer Kinky Friedman was running for governor of Texas on the slogan “How hard can it be?” When asked how he would cope with the role if elected, he would reply: “I’m Jewish, I’ll hire good people”.

Presumably Boris feels the same. But Tory HQ should be in no doubt, the corollary of the personality package I have just described, is independence of thought and extreme obstinacy when pushed too far or bossed about too much.

Boris has already stated that he sees London as London, not another Tory constituency, and while he may let the Tories have some influence over what he does, and who he appoints, I am sure he will remain his own man and we shall see some interesting conflicts in future where his view does not match of Tory HQ.

I don’t think Ken really lost because of the Evening Standard’s campaign, although that helped, I think he lost because at the end of the day he clung to the outdated concept of divide and rule identity politics, egged on by the likes of Lee Jasper. This might work when only inner London votes, and grievances can be fanned and favours bought by the judicial massaging of public money, it does not and will not work when the suburbs rise up and say enough is enough. But there was no sign Ken was listening to or seeing the signals. Arrogance sadly did for him in the end.

I still think KL was idiotic, but to compare him to the rabbit is associate Israelis to Avigdor Lieberman.

I think he lost because at the end of the day he clung to the outdated concept of divide and rule identity politics, egged on by the likes of Lee Jasper.

You see the problem is that his vote was up on last time so the idea that this or his supposed “arrogance” lost him the election really is just a dream amongst those who put a lot of effort into slagging the man!

I can’t think of much national policy that the mayor is able to test within his powers. The tories might be able to take any crime reduction under Johnson to the bank nationally perhaps, but thats about it.

But maybe if Ken had been less arrogant he would have got an even larger share of the vote than he did.

At the moment the general Labour view seems to be that Ken did fine, it was the economic climate biting all snooty middleclass voters from Bromley (serve them right) who saw him off, and when you think about it, Bromley citizens shouldn’t be allowed to be part of London anyway.

Maybe if Ken hadn’t pissed off previous supporters around London,by his arrogance, like me and David T for example, over the last few years, then he would have got back in on a greatly increased vote?

PS What is an ordinary Londoner?

But maybe if Ken had been less arrogant he would have got an even larger share of the vote than he did.

Maybe also if he had shaved his head, put on a clowns nose and worn a T shirt proclaiming “Justice for martians.”

Fact is his vote was up and although you ex-lefties would like to claim his scalp it is actually down to the Tory “cabbies” from Bromley and Harrow.

Sorry like.

An ordinary Londoner is an ordianry person – from London.

mmm So Tory cabbies who live in Bromley and Harrow are not ordinary Londoners? I wonder what they would have to say about that?

it is actually down to the Tory “cabbies” from Bromley and Harrow: like the 85 year old man who told me this was the first time in his life he had not voted Labour, and the car park attendant who had always previously voted Labour, neither of whom are in my employ.

Well they are ordinary Londoners at the moment (but I would remove certainly Bromley the great semi-rural blob) from London if I could, because as someone who attends a Xmas party at the “party factory” Bromley Court Hotel ever year (out of duty) the place doesn’t strike me as being like anywhere else in the capital .

By “Tory cabbies” by the way I don’t mean actual “cabbies” as much as “people who ferried voters to polling stations in their own cars”

No Graham is right.
In fact Ken should have been even *more* arrogant and divisive surely?

Yes remove all non Ken voting burbs…so long as I can live in my own genuine London consisting only of Westminster, the City and K&C.

These graffiti artist shits from N16 – wherever the hell that hellhole happens to be – can be cut loose along with Bromley please.

I was in Totteridge for a birthday party at the weekend, up near where the LB Barnet joins Hertfordshire. I had never been there before and was amazed when we turned off the main road and headed towards Totteridge itself – there were houses like French chateaux, Tudor Manor Houses, Southfork ranches, unbelievable. I suppose they were also inhabited by “ordinary” Londoners, but I would be hard pressed to call them that.

In fact inhabitants of the outer reaches of Bromley and Bexley have fought successive battles over the years NOT to be part of Greater London. But to no avail.

In 1972 the outer London boroughs were incorporated into Greater London from their historic counties, as part of a rationalisation of local government and as well because of the desire of British government for over 50 years to merge smaller self governing entities into larger ones (a trend still visible in the current proposals for super surgeries or mega post offices).

I would happily roll back the further reaches of many of Greater London’s outer boroughs into their pre 1972 counties.

Sorry I should have said that the first reorganisation of London boroughs into the GLC was in 1965 when the 32 London Boroughs were formed into the GLC. Abolished 1986. The local government reorganisation nationally in 1974 came later.

Mrs Ben,

I think that, in fact (alas I can’t cite chapter and verse) that some of the very most outlying parts of Bromley did in fact succeed in being reassigned from Greater London back to Kent, fairly early in the former’s existence – and also that some parts of Surrey, notably (IIRC) the entire borough of Epsom & Ewell, but I think some other areas between Kingston and Staines, managed to lobby to stay out of Greater London. A few other places have switched sides of the GLC boundary over the years, one way or the other

While, to the east, there was also a campaign a few years back to get the London Borough of Havering renamed as “The London Borough of Havering, Essex”.

The overall solution I would propose would be twofold:

First, a greater decentralization of power from central government to local authorities, allowing them the right to make policy decisions within certain limits, rather than merely operating administratively, allocating budgets as commanded, fulfilling targets as commanded from above. (I would hope this might, inter alia, bring about a better calibre of local councillor – probably encouraging the establishment of local borough mayors, too. All in all, invigorating and creating vibrant local democracies that are sadly lacking in many places – perhaps on the French model.

Second, as regards London: it’s clear that the needs of the inner boroughs and the outer boroughs are not identical – - I probably would favour the reduction of the area that is administered by City Hall – whether that is to, say, the end of Zone 2 , or perhaps around the North/South Circular Roads, more or less.

And let the outer borooughs either continue to exist as unitary authorities, or to be reabsorbed into the surrounding counties, where in many ways, most of them might more logically belong. All of these decisions to be made in response to local referendums in the areas affected. There would obviously have to be some degree of cooperation between these boroughs and what remains of London on certain matters (transport, most obviously).

In fact Ken should have been even *more* arrogant and divisive surely?

Point is it wouldn’t have made the slighest bit of difference to his core vote if he had been,

I still think KL was idiotic, but to compare him to the rabbit is associate Israelis to Avigdor Lieberman

False logical argument. Ken is a single person. Israelis are many people. Hence you cannot translate a one-to-one relationship (ie Ken=Hamas White Rabbit) into a one to-to-many relationship (Israelis=Avigdor Lieverman).

Anyway, if you don’t like the White Rabbit I’ll trade it for the Mouse. What comes out of Ken’s mouth about Israel and Jews isn’t very different. The only difference is one is acting to his maters’s script and the other acting to his own script – but approved by his masters.

Maven, I’m sorry but that’s just dumb, and something far too akin to the sort of ignorant bigotry and petty obsessive hatred that was far too prevalent in the sadly successful campaign to remove the finest political leader London has seen for a long long time from office.

Yes, Ken may be no syncophant of Israel – - but frankly, so what? Why should he be?

Unlike Hamas, he is not a promoter of genocide and hatred, against Jews, against Israel, or anyone esle.

I would have thought that was a fairly major difference, for starters. (There are many other differences, too, but why should I bother continuing to such a moronic statement)

Alas that we lost such a fine leader.

One of the things I found particularly hard to stomach, was Ken’s repeated and vocal opposition to “violence on any side”, while invariably repeating the Qaradawi line that Palestinians engage in suicide bombing “because they have only their bodies to use”.

I found that sort of equivocating on par with those who seek to excuse (for example) IDF soldiers using civilians as human shields, on the grounds that “Israel is under existential threat”.

I think that people who profess opposition to violence, while putting the case for such human rights abuses, actually aren’t opposed to the violence at all.

Yes, Ken’s vote went up slightly but then the overall turnout went up, and that was not only due to the Tories mobilising their voters in the outer boroughs. And given the fact that this election was always going to be a closely fought affair than the last you have to wonder why Ken wasn’t able to do the same. The fact is there seem to be a lot of people around saying that they voted for Ken in the past but no longer felt able to. Anyone who blames it all on Tories in the outer boroughs is just burying their head in the sand.

The fact is there seem to be a lot of people around saying that they voted for Ken in the past but no longer felt able to.

It isn’t what people say they are going to do but what they actually do which counts and Ken’s vote increased. Of course it was about the Tories in the outer suburbs – anyone who thinks it was about anything else is living in a self-deluded dreamland.

While, to the east, there was also a campaign a few years back to get the London Borough of Havering renamed as “The London Borough of Havering, Essex”

I think the campaign was actually to get Havering moved back into Essex, or at least there was a seperate campaign for that as well. They have been trying to change the name for donkeys years. As someone who lives in Havering I actually quite like being part of Greater London and it’s not an area in which it should be impossible for labour to win substantial number of votes.

It isn’t what people say they are going to do but what they actually do which counts and Ken’s vote increased.

Well yes, and those people who said they were no longer prepared to vote for Ken kept their word and either voted for Boris or not at all. Ken got more votes than last time on a higher turnout overall. He could have got even more, possibly enough to win the election.

False logical argument. Ken is a single person. Israelis are many people.

Alright, then. You are a Zionist Jew, AL is a Zionist Jew (let’s just say so, for argument)… you are like AL.

Boris won on the vote in Bromley alone, where he had a majority of almost 80,000.

Do I take it Graham is going to form the South London Democrats Party which aims to ditch the Bromley carpetbaggers and their unelected balsamic vinegar mafia?

He could have got more and the Labour party made a big effort in the last few weeks to go door-knocking in the inner cities. But as I said before (and was tittered at) it rained on the day and inner-city Labour parties don’t send cabs….

I know at least three barely political people who did not vote at all (not altogether sure who they would have voted for) purely because of the rain. Yes we can say “they didn’t care much” but that is the Labour problem whether the candidate is Ken or anybody else. All it needs is a level of taxing that the tories had in Bromley for instance – this in itself being made much easier because the outer suburbs are less transient and more communities where people know who needs help.

In Bromley it is more Creme Brulee and prawn cocktails than balsamic vinegar Alec.

But I must leave Ven to tell why Bexley is even more of an abomination.

That should have been Taxiing rather than taxing above (I’m sure you noticed.)

Andrew Adams: In 1997, all three MPs in Havering were Labour. In 2001, when I was asked to campaign in Romford, Havering was the only local authority area where Labour lost 2 MPs. In 2005, Hornchurch, a “must win seat for Labour in 1997″ also elected a Conservative.

In the current Parliament, there are Labour MPs in places that never elected Labour MPs before 1997, yea not even in 1945 or 1966. Examples would include Hove, Gillingham, Wolverhampton South West, Leeds North East, Wirral West.

Somethings are happening in Havering that are not happening elsewhere.

Leave off. It’s over. Let it go. The Ken is Dead. Long live the Boris!

Graham, I don’t doubt that the taxiing made a contribution to Boris’s vote, although I’m not sure it was much as you seem to think. I have seen a lot of people though, here and elsewhere, claiming that they had previously voted for Ken but didn’t feel they could do so any longer. I wavered myself. There have been a variety of reasons given but none of them cited the weather.

Cronyism – Once you reach a certain level in any occupation or profession, will be people who want to be your courtiers. And these courtiers (or personal assistants or special advisors or whatever they are called) depend on your preferment for their jobs, or status, so they butter you up and subtly flatter you and generally look out for you.

But while they are loyal to you so their own hangers on are also looking out for patronage from them. And sooner or later, one of your trusted courtiers will have a rush of power to the head and start broking favours.

And before you know it, however incorruptible you are personally, as leader you get dragged into a scandal created by one of your courtiers favour mongering. This must be what happened to Ken with Lee Jasper.

But on the other hand, if you don’t do cronies, the people who want to be your cronies and can’t, will plot to discredit or remove you with someone who does. I do wonder if and how Boris will avoid this trap. Plus of course all powerful men attact power groupies and Boris will be no different.

Graham, I don’t doubt that the taxiing made a contribution to Boris’s vote, although I’m not sure it was much as you seem to think. I have seen a lot of people though, here and elsewhere, claiming that they had previously voted for Ken but didn’t feel they could do so any longer.

Yet Boris’ (tory) vote rose whilst Ken’s stayed pretty much the same…

I think a lot of people who “claimed” they could vote for Ken no longer never voted for him in the first place.

Alan Ji,

Havering did elect three Labour MPs in 1997, but all with fairly slim majorities. It wasn’t a massive surprise therefore that they subsequently went back to the Tories, although I take your point about the other places you mentioned. However, given the demographics and the fact that the local council has quite often changed hands I do find it a bit surprising that Labour doesn’t generally get more support there at general elections.

Yet Boris’ (tory) vote rose whilst Ken’s stayed pretty much the same…

But more people voted overall, as you might expect in a contest expected to be tight and with a high profile challenger like Boris. Not all of those extra voters voted for Boris, even if a majority did. Ken’s number of votes staying the same doesn’t mean that the same people voted for him. There must have been a number who voted for Ken this time but didn’t before, therefore there must be a similar number who voted for him before but did not do so this time.

I think a lot of people who “claimed” they could vote for Ken no longer never voted for him in the first place.

Why do you think they would lie and what basis do you have for making this claim anyway?

But more people voted overall

Yes. At least 80,000 more in bromley alone…

Ken’s number of votes staying the same doesn’t mean that the same people voted for him.

That’s a bit of a desperate argument though isn’t it? I mean his vote actually went up which means that someone was voting for him.

If all your people who were fed up with Ken and could not bring themselves to vote for him were not lying then how do you explain the great rise in the Livingstone vote? That’s the elephant in the room now. To put it another way if all your whiners (and I heard far fewer of them except on websites than I heard complaining about the rain) did not vote for Ken than who were all his new voters (and why did they vote for him?) Why would they lie? because they wanted gullible people to think that there was a mass of peoplpe changing sides of course!

I know you wish to claim some effect of all the hectoring on blogs etc but I really think you have to admit that it made no difference at all in the great scheme of things.

an alliance of gameshow fans, 4×4 drivers, suburban curtain-twitchers, BNP second-preferences, Labourphobes and the thoroughly fed-up, mostly from places that don’t even count as London, have foisted a Thatcherite mayor on our generally left-leaning city.

Whoops that last paragraph is from

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/03/was-it-the-standard-wot-won-it/

Liberal conspiracy and I put it in as a talking point rather than endorsing it! (Still not used to this new site yet.)

Graham, are you Greenwich or Lewisham?

Both are part of the same constituency in terms of this election Alec. In the usual configuration I straddle the border (In that I am in Lewisham but Greenwich binmen empty the bins on the other side of the street.)

Very roughly (I have rounded up the figures and am too tired to be bothered re-checking) turnout was:

38,000 higher barnet and Camden

40,000 higher in Bexley and Bromley

35,000 higher in brent and Harrow

40,000 higher in city and east

34,000 higher in Croydon and Sutton

28,000 higher in ealing and Hillingdon

37,000 higher in Enfield and Haringey

35,000 higher in Greenwich and Lewisham

30,000 higher in Havering and Redbridge

42,000 higher in Lambeth and Southwark

40,000 higher in merton and Wandsworth

50,000 higher in North East

40,000 higher in South West

40,000 higher in west central

So someone was lying about the 80,000 in Bromley alone!

Anyway cheer up – Boris has picked his advisors on women’s issues:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/04/07/boris_narrowweb__300×347,0.jpg

Ta’, Graham. Incidentially, Danny Smircky’s already linked, but see MPAC loosing control of this thread. I have to say, though, I am torn at the thought that I could be missing out on such photo-shoots if I never vote Tory.

I hope that HP is going to help Labour out in the difficult time which it is about to face.

A few nice posts would go down well. :)

I hope that remark about lying about 80,000 votes in Bromley was not directed at me, Grahame? Anyway, I don’t know why you complain about Tories ferrying their voters to the polls, when I was an active member of Hornsey and Wood Green Labour Party about 25 years ago, it was standard paractice. In fact, I read EP Thompson’s ‘Making of the English Working Class’ once (or read some of it anyway) and it was mentioned that jparties used to provide carriages to take their voters to the polls. It is an ancient tradition. The fact that the Labour leadership has DESTROYED the (rank and file)Labour Party is now becoming apparent. There is no annual policy-making conference, no General Committees, no-one left to do the canvassing and knocking up. TThe phrase, ‘Made their bed, lie on it,’ springs to mind. Except of course, who will defenc the working class? Anyway, I’m off to cultivate my garden.

I hope that remark about lying about 80,000 votes in Bromley was not directed at me, Grahame?

Did you use those figures Sue? Well we were tricked by whoever did lie about them because I used them above too!

I’m not complaining about “ferrying” by the way – I am just recognising that the Tories get their vote out that way much better than labour do. I talked to an old Lady this morning who would have voted for Ken but forgot to do postal and then found herself unable to leave her flat on the day itself.

Graham, I presume the point was that Johnson had a plurality of 80,000 votes in Bexley and Bromley, which he did. http://results.londonelects.org.uk/Results/MayoralResultConstituency.aspx?id=2

Thanks Tom (I’m off to learn to spell that word which means the study of elections and starts with a p)

I was certainly out campaigning and knocking-up for Ken in Hornsey & Wood Green.

On analysing the result my initial feeling (it felt like when my pet dog) died was tempered by the elation of retaining the Enfield & Haringey GLA seat and regaining Brent & Harrow. This bucked the outer London trend (why is Haringey outer London?) but then as with comments on Havering becoming more Tory, Enfield or Harrow are going the other way. The social and demographic factors for this need another thread (there are other examples, by 2020 I would suggest Wakefield will be a Tory seat but Basingstoke a Labour one, regardless of the national result).

I must admit I don’t personally know anyone in London (friends or work colleagues) who changed their vote. This suggests differential turnout is a factor – Labour supporters feel let down and stayed at home and Tories feel enthusiastic about their party and turned out. This will also be magnfied by activists. At the 1997 general election night after night I canvassed with dozens of Labour activists but saw not a single Tory activist but I guess the Tory activists were out in numbers this time (they didn’t bother with Wood Green though).

Labour still has to face why its supporters feel let down though (there will have been ‘Brown factors’ and ‘Ken factors’ I am sure).

On the overall local government system. The formation of the GLC and then the 1972 Local Government Act were a sensible set of reforms with clear and powerful-ish two tier local government across the country. It replaced a incoherent system of ’swiss-cheese’ counties and unitary county boroughs which we have now reverted too (with the added embellishment of the occasional directly elected Mayor). My initial thoughts would be Edward Heath got it right(!) and we should go back to the two tier system with the old powers restored. Boundaries might need to change, we should avoid things like Avon, Humberside or Salop! Along the same lines perhaps we should de-merge the 32 London Boroughs (Haringey is artificial but Wood Green, Hornsey and Tottenham have some resonance with communities).

I think Jed displays the fatal weakness of NuLabour. The urge to tinker with everything. Let’s have more change. Things can only get better, if we change it all. Apres moi, la Deluge….

What is really awful for me about the Boris victory but it appeared trite to mention it before is that I have a wonderful cat called Boris who now must be renamed.

When I named him 10 months ago that Boris was a bad memory and a mooted Tory candidate that I laughed off.

Well that’ll learn me!

Any suggestions for a name for a seven toed British Tabby/Maine Coone/ Asian Leapord cat with an exotic look and very odd behaviour?

What about Frisky?

Of course ‘fuck Boris’ could be a sign of enthusiasm. Even in N16.

“Any suggestions for a name for a seven toed British Tabby/Maine Coone/ Asian Leapord cat with an exotic look and very odd behaviour?”

Boris?

I had got used to stopping, stroking and saying hello to a rather friendly Maine Coone which always put its head over the wall in Greenwich. Alas this week I see it has been cat-snatched and the owners have put up posters offering a reward for its return.

Just one more sad story from the mean streets (or something.)

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=40256255076
Join then fightback