On 26 June, 14:31, Mizter T wrote:
On Jun 26, 12:00*pm, MIG wrote:

On 26 June, 11:47, Tom Barry wrote:

David Cantrell wrote:

Yes, I was quite shocked to realise that I'd prefer a Tory, but when the
only alternative is someone who approved of Tony Blair, then there was
really no choice.

Sorry, who approved of Tony Blair? *Remind me of Boris and Ken's
respective positions on the Iraq War for a moment, will you?

When Ken decided that he needed New Labour's resources for his second
campaign, he rejoined and became born-again New Labour. *That's got to
be a stronger statement than simply staying in Labour through inertia.

Get the history right at least. He left the Labour party after failing
to get selected to be the Labour Mayoral candidate in 2000 - but that
was the result of a total stitch-up of the selection process by the
Labour leadership. Leaving the party you've been a member of for your
whole political life is hardly inertia.


No, I used that term as a contrast to Ken's position. He left and
chose to rejoin. Most just stay there.


He spoke of wanting to rejoin the Labour party *even before* he'd won
the first ever election - this story is from Friday 28 April 2000,
less than a week before the first Mayoral election on Thursday 4 May:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ndon_mayor/729...

His first attempt to rejoin the party was rejected in the summer of
2002 - his application...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2075257.stm

...and the NEC's rejection...http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2145796.stm

He was eventually successful in rejoining the party in January 2004,
before going on to be selected as their candidate ion the 2004
election a month later:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3452363.stm

So he wanted to rejoin Labour long before the second election
campaign. And most London Labour activists and members wanted him to
be the Labour candidate in '04 - indeed, a great number of them wanted
him as the candidate the first time round in 2000, but the stitch-up
excluded him.


I didn't know he'd tried to rejoin so many times, but I remember the
stitchup well. I was a member of the union whose block vote, that
would have got Ken selected as Labour candidate, was discounted on
dubious grounds.



Also, from that point onwards, he ceased expressing political opinions
on most things, restricting his pronouncements to things like
reliability of buses, encouraged strike-breaking, ceased appearing at
anti-war rallies etc.

Not true.

March '05, calling Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a "war
criminal":http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4319879.stm

February '05, ignoring the PM, Tony Blar, and many other senior Labour
people who were strongly urging him to apologise for the "German war
criminal" jibe:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4269979.stm

September '05 - ok, so it was a statement read out by Kate Hudson of
the CND, but Livingstone voiced (or had voiced) his views on Iraq at
an anti-war protest in London:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4275542.stm
(was he perhaps away on business, I dunno, I've googled but failed to
discover more)

The 'encouragement' of strike breaking, as you put it, showed that he
wasn't in the pockets of the unions.

OK I'm exaggerating a bit, but his political pronouncements and
attendance at ralllies were dramatically curtailed.

Voting with his feet, basically.

Livingstone always made clear that he was a Labour man, and justified
going it alone as an independent in 2000 by referring to the strenuous
efforts made by the Labour leadership to exclude him (and he was
expelled, rather than resigned his member ship, of the Labour party in
2000). The idea he could carry on standing as an independent candidate
in future elections is hopeful, to say the least - most commentators
appear to agree that Mayoral candidates need a party machine behind
them to be a success, and continually running as an independent is not
really feasible. His election in 2000 as an independent candidate was
the result of special circumstances, specifically those of his dodgy
exclusion from being the party's Mayoral candidate.

I agree that he might not have won without the backing of Labour in
2004, but then again, his association with Labour in 2008 was probably
a sufficient handicap for him to lose to Boris, although by a far
smaller margin that Labour was losing to Conservatives elsewhere.



The other thing that people continually fail to take proper account of
is the fact that Livingstone was 'back in the fold' he was able to get
a far better deal out of central government than were he to have
remained an independent - for example, TfL gained the ability to
borrow on the money markets in summer 2004 which enabled them to fund
the ELLX project, as detailed in this Mayoral press release - note
that Ken is hardly being complementary about rail privatisation and by
implication the government's policy on the railways (note that by this
time, saying such things was no longer simply just a criticism of the
Tories and their pre-97 actions):http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_...releaseid=3903

Livingstone came to an accommodation with the 'way of the world' -
markets, private finance, the City etc - he certainly always said
"this is not the world as I would have made it", but instead stated
that he was being a pragmatist and doing the best that he could given
the way the world worked. From a transport point of view, I think he
was very effective, though my broad support for Livingstone was
certainly not without reservations. But he wasn't ever "born-again New
Labour".

My view in 2008 was "if you can't have the Mayor whose politics you
agree with, you might as well have one who knows how to run things",
so I would hugely prefer Ken to Boris from a transport point of view,
while still finding his actions unforgivable.

What galls most is that he rejoined at a time when Blair was in real
trouble over Iraq. The timing gave Blair a huge boost at a time when
he might have been on the verge of withdrawing troops from Iraq. I
think it was total cynicism from Blair to have him back as a winner,
and opportunism from Ken, but he must have known what a boost he was
giving to everything he supposedly opposed, like the continued
occupation etc.

And I think that Ken's original position was to oppose the creation of
directly-elected Mayors as undermining local democracy. That's a
position I agreed with at the time and still do. Any Mayor other than
Ken simply gives their party overall control while local
representatives have little power. Labour, never expecting to be able
to lose, wanted anyone other than Ken for that reason.

Mizter T wrote:

Get the history right at least. He left the Labour party after failing
to get selected to be the Labour Mayoral candidate in 2000 - but that
was the result of a total stitch-up of the selection process by the
Labour leadership.

The selection *process* wasn't really a stich-up as it was the same process
normally used for selecting positions in the Labour Party at the time,
although contemporary comments from Blair & the like blurred the fine
distinction of the rules. The main critical point was over whether or not
trade unions had to ballot their membership - for party leadership elections
they do (and cast a split vote accordingly) but for the Mayoral candidate
and others (at least at the time) they didn't and a lot of unions cast a
block vote for Dobson. (Livingstone generally won where there were ballots
but I don't know if these unions cast a split or block vote.) There were
also a minor dispute about whether or not a London MEP who was standing down
sould be eligible to vote, as MPs & MEPs between them had votes worth 1/3 of
the electoral college.

(By the way wasn't Livingstone opposed to the requirement for unions to
ballot their members for leadership elections when the change was made
during John Smith's leadership? My recollection is that the hard left of the
Labour Party were generally opposed, though split from softer left elements
like John Prescott on this one.)

It is not really a stitch-up if one uses the process that is already
existing, unless of course there was a formal attempt at the time to modify
the rules that the leadership pulled strings to block (I can't remember this
happening). It's certainly not like other asserted "leadership stitch-ups"
where the rules are drawn up & redrawn so close to the event that people
start assuming the outcome is preplanned, such as the recent rules for
selecting & reselecting Conservative MEP candidates (which seem to change
for each election). The problem was the longstanding distribution of power
in the Labour Party.

MIG wrote:

I agree that he might not have won without the backing of Labour in
2004, but then again, his association with Labour in 2008 was probably
a sufficient handicap for him to lose to Boris, although by a far
smaller margin that Labour was losing to Conservatives elsewhere.

I think in 2004 he would probably have won as an independent. Labour had
selected Nicky Gavron as their candidate and rapidly learned that Assembly
Members, even sitting Deputy Mayors, have zero profile and all polls
suggested she would come fourth while Livingstone won. Remember that the
Conservative candidate Steve Norris was also engulfed with some problems in
that election and had the race been considerably closer they would
undoubtedly have got more attention, both putting off voters and also acting
as a damper on Conservative activists' enthusiasm. Never underestimate how
much momentum can be lost if the activist base is unenthusiastic - Labour
similarly did badly in 2000 because many activists didn't want to actively
campaign against Livingstone.

(And before anyone raises the prospect of Simon Hughes coming through the
middle, even before the notorious revelations in 2006, the Liberal Democrats
have always found elections on a London-wide and regional basis very hard to
fight because the battleground is so different from the localised fights
where their successes are. At the local level they combine pavement
politics, parochialism and appeals for tactical votes to get success. But on
a London wide basis they're having to fight on too many fronts to get a
consistent message together and can't just run a campaign based on being in
second place. Their organisation in London is also very patchy - strong in
areas like Hughes's home base of Southwark or the south west boroughs,
partial in some other boroughs and non existant in a few. The voting system
also hurts them badly as it encourages protest votes to scatter across
parties but denies a third placed party the opportunity to harvest transfers
to get into the top two.)

On 26 June, 15:16, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
Get the history right at least. He left the Labour party after failing
to get selected to be the Labour Mayoral candidate in 2000 - but that
was the result of a total stitch-up of the selection process by the
Labour leadership.

The selection *process* wasn't really a stich-up as it was the same process
normally used for selecting positions in the Labour Party at the time,
although contemporary comments from Blair & the like blurred the fine
distinction of the rules. The main critical point was over whether or not
trade unions had to ballot their membership - for party leadership elections
they do (and cast a split vote accordingly) but for the Mayoral candidate
and others (at least at the time) they didn't and a lot of unions cast a
block vote for Dobson. (Livingstone generally won where there were ballots
but I don't know if these unions cast a split or block vote.) There were
also a minor dispute about whether or not a London MEP who was standing down
sould be eligible to vote, as MPs & MEPs between them had votes worth 1/3 of
the electoral college.

Actually, a single issue which was sufficient to swing the whole
selection process was that the the eligibility of a union to
participate was decided at the last minute to be based on their having
paid their affiliation fee by a deadline before the date when one
particular large union had paid it (although it had paid by the time
of the election).

(I think I wrongly used the term block vote in a previous post; I
think I should have said vote, because it was probably split but
overwhelmingly for Ken anyway.)



(By the way wasn't Livingstone opposed to the requirement for unions to
ballot their members for leadership elections when the change was made
during John Smith's leadership? My recollection is that the hard left of the
Labour Party were generally opposed, though split from softer left elements
like John Prescott on this one.)

You mean General Secretaries? A downside of electing them is that
then they think they've got a mandate, when really they should be
professional employees carrying out the policy of the Conference ...
not that they ever would anyway.


It is not really a stitch-up if one uses the process that is already
existing, unless of course there was a formal attempt at the time to modify
the rules that the leadership pulled strings to block (I can't remember this
happening). It's certainly not like other asserted "leadership stitch-ups"
where the rules are drawn up & redrawn so close to the event that people
start assuming the outcome is preplanned, such as the recent rules for
selecting & reselecting Conservative MEP candidates (which seem to change
for each election). The problem was the longstanding distribution of power
in the Labour Party.

See above re rules.

MIG wrote:

The selection *process* wasn't really a stich-up as it was the same
process
normally used for selecting positions in the Labour Party at the time,
although contemporary comments from Blair & the like blurred the fine
distinction of the rules. The main critical point was over whether or not
trade unions had to ballot their membership - for party leadership
elections
they do (and cast a split vote accordingly) but for the Mayoral candidate
and others (at least at the time) they didn't and a lot of unions cast a
block vote for Dobson. (Livingstone generally won where there were
ballots
but I don't know if these unions cast a split or block vote.) There were
also a minor dispute about whether or not a London MEP who was standing
down
sould be eligible to vote, as MPs & MEPs between them had votes worth 1/3
of
the electoral college.

Actually, a single issue which was sufficient to swing the whole
selection process was that the the eligibility of a union to
participate was decided at the last minute to be based on their having
paid their affiliation fee by a deadline before the date when one
particular large union had paid it (although it had paid by the time
of the election).

I can't recall this one getting much attention but doubtless it did. Had the
large union made a binding committment or some such?

(By the way wasn't Livingstone opposed to the requirement for unions to
ballot their members for leadership elections when the change was made
during John Smith's leadership? My recollection is that the hard left of
the
Labour Party were generally opposed, though split from softer left
elements
like John Prescott on this one.)

You mean General Secretaries? A downside of electing them is that
then they think they've got a mandate, when really they should be
professional employees carrying out the policy of the Conference ...
not that they ever would anyway.

I actually meant Labour leadership elections. Block votes in the name of
unconsulted members (both unions and CLPs) were all the rage up until c1993.
But I agree about the problems with General Secretaries.

On 26 June, 23:32, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
MIG wrote:
The selection *process* wasn't really a stich-up as it was the same
process
normally used for selecting positions in the Labour Party at the time,
although contemporary comments from Blair & the like blurred the fine
distinction of the rules. The main critical point was over whether or not
trade unions had to ballot their membership - for party leadership
elections
they do (and cast a split vote accordingly) but for the Mayoral candidate
and others (at least at the time) they didn't and a lot of unions cast a
block vote for Dobson. (Livingstone generally won where there were
ballots
but I don't know if these unions cast a split or block vote.) There were
also a minor dispute about whether or not a London MEP who was standing
down
sould be eligible to vote, as MPs & MEPs between them had votes worth 1/3
of
the electoral college.
Actually, a single issue which was sufficient to swing the whole
selection process was that the the eligibility of a union to
participate was decided at the last minute to be based on their having
paid their affiliation fee by a deadline before the date when one
particular large union had paid it (although it had paid by the time
of the election).

I can't recall this one getting much attention but doubtless it did. Had the
large union made a binding committment or some such?

(all this purely from memory, may research and check)

In the same way that local branches of the union could affiliate to
Constituency Labour Parties, the London Region of the union could
affiliate to the London Region of the Labour Party. This affiliation
was deemed to be the basis for participating in the electoral college
for selecting the London Mayor candidate.

The timing of payment of the affiliation fee, for cash flow purposes,
had tended to be a bit flexible with regard to deadlines, but this
hadn't been a problem before, and affiliation was continuous in
reality.

Suddenly there was an opportunity for the Labour hierarchy to
retrospectively give the deadline a whole new meaning and rule out the
union's participation, and for the union hierarchy to scapegoat its
internal political opponents, blaming their supposed incompetence for
not paying on time (but well before the selection process).

The union couldn't (and wouldn't anyway) take Labour to court for the
stitchup, but it was possible for six individual members, including a
former Labour General Secretary, to take them to court. They lost
against the establishment, but there ought to have been a lot of
publicity at the time. There probably wasn't.


(By the way wasn't Livingstone opposed to the requirement for unions to
ballot their members for leadership elections when the change was made
during John Smith's leadership? My recollection is that the hard left of
the
Labour Party were generally opposed, though split from softer left
elements
like John Prescott on this one.)
You mean General Secretaries? *A downside of electing them is that
then they think they've got a mandate, when really they should be
professional employees carrying out the policy of the Conference ...
not that they ever would anyway.

I actually meant Labour leadership elections. Block votes in the name of
unconsulted members (both unions and CLPs) were all the rage up until c1993.
But I agree about the problems with General Secretaries.-

Oh right. Anyway, my memory is hazy now but I think that the union
did ballot its London members on the Mayor selection (a huge waste of
money). It's academic now, since the vote didn't count, but I am not
sure if this would have translated into a split vote or a block vote
for the winner of the ballot. It would have favoured Ken either way.

On 27 June, 09:33, MIG wrote:
On 26 June, 23:32, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-





wrote:
MIG wrote:
The selection *process* wasn't really a stich-up as it was the same
process
normally used for selecting positions in the Labour Party at the time,
although contemporary comments from Blair & the like blurred the fine
distinction of the rules. The main critical point was over whether or not
trade unions had to ballot their membership - for party leadership
elections
they do (and cast a split vote accordingly) but for the Mayoral candidate
and others (at least at the time) they didn't and a lot of unions cast a
block vote for Dobson. (Livingstone generally won where there were
ballots
but I don't know if these unions cast a split or block vote.) There were
also a minor dispute about whether or not a London MEP who was standing
down
sould be eligible to vote, as MPs & MEPs between them had votes worth 1/3
of
the electoral college.
Actually, a single issue which was sufficient to swing the whole
selection process was that the the eligibility of a union to
participate was decided at the last minute to be based on their having
paid their affiliation fee by a deadline before the date when one
particular large union had paid it (although it had paid by the time
of the election).

I can't recall this one getting much attention but doubtless it did. Had the
large union made a binding committment or some such?

(all this purely from memory, may research and check)

In the same way that local branches of the union could affiliate to
Constituency Labour Parties, the London Region of the union could
affiliate to the London Region of the Labour Party. *This affiliation
was deemed to be the basis for participating in the electoral college
for selecting the London Mayor candidate.

The timing of payment of the affiliation fee, for cash flow purposes,
had tended to be a bit flexible with regard to deadlines, but this
hadn't been a problem before, and affiliation was continuous in
reality.

Suddenly there was an opportunity for the Labour hierarchy to
retrospectively give the deadline a whole new meaning and rule out the
union's participation, and for the union hierarchy to scapegoat its
internal political opponents, blaming their supposed incompetence for
not paying on time (but well before the selection process).

The union couldn't (and wouldn't anyway) take Labour to court for the
stitchup, but it was possible for six individual members, including a
former Labour General Secretary, to take them to court. *They lost
against the establishment, but there ought to have been a lot of
publicity at the time. *There probably wasn't.

Sorry to follow up, but here is a Grauniad report, which I should have
looked up instead of relying on memory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...londonmayor.uk

It's rather matter of fact, basically saying that Labour can make
whatever rules it likes, and talking about "paying subscription on
time".

It could be spun in a different way, such as "Labour scraped around
looking for any rule it could invent that would rule out a large chunk
of Ken support".