WI: Ken Livingstone wins the 2012 London Mayoral election

[Gorro Rubio]

Nowadays, Ken Livingstone’s legacy is severely tarnished by his bigoted comments about the Jewish community, but 15 years ago he was one of the most popular and powerful politicians in the country, a man who was able to defeat the two main major parties in an important election running as an independent candidate and, for better or worse, the embodiment of Noughties London.

After losing the 2008 Mayoral election, he ran again in 2012 against Boris Johnson. He was defeated again, but Johnson only polled less than 4% more than him. If he had been able to overcome such difference, what would the current state of British politics? Would a defeated Johnson go back to obscurity? He was arguably instrumental in the victory of the Leave campaign in the 2016 referendum on remaining on the EU. Could his election loss have avoided Brexit? And also, on the Labour side of things, would Ed Miliband’s leadership become stronger after a narrow win in the capital? It appears that by 2012 Livingstone had no higher ambitions, but being the Mayor of London he would undoubtedly be talked as a potential successor to Miliband. Last but not least, what effect would his victory have on the Labour left?

 

[Thande]

I think the immediate fallout would be that the Tories wouldn't have a figleaf for the 2012 local election rounds so it would be universally a Labour win - paired with the big Labour gains in the English councils and also the SNP damp-squibbing in Glasgow (in particular) at the same time. I don't know if that would alter media narratives or the internal struggles of Labour.

Boris Johnson would probably be able to bounce back by blaming it all on Dave and the Omnishambles, but it would obviously have an impact on the Olympics to have Ken Livingstone there instead and that would lower Boris' profile.

Obviously in the long run Ken Livingstone as Mayor is likely to be very very bad for Labour and might blow up at just the wrong time for the 2015 general election.

 

[Gorro Rubio]

I think the immediate fallout would be that the Tories wouldn't have a figleaf for the 2012 local election rounds so it would be universally a Labour win - paired with the big Labour gains in the English councils and also the SNP damp-squibbing in Glasgow at the same time.

I hadn’t thought of that, and yes, it’s a very obvious short term consequence. Would the LibDems have second thoughts about the Coalition as a result?

 

[Thande]

I hadn’t thought of that, and yes, it’s a very obvious short term consequence. Would the LibDems have second thoughts about the Coalition as a result?

No, at that point they're locked in. Of course it was Common Knowledge among us in the thread that Obviously they'd do something like pack Clegg off to a non-job in Europe and then dramatically break the coalition in 2014 to try to escape its toxic legacy - which was going to happen until it didn't.

UKIP's rise will likely still happen, the signs of it were already becoming clear in 2012, but they might receive less media attention.

 

[KingCrawa]

The interesting thing would be its effect on Johnsons future ambitions.

Up until this point he was a sometimes appearing on TV politico who'd been sacked twice from different jobs for being a lying liar who liars (and badly) with one term as Mayor under his belt.

A large part of his legacy and reputation is built around his time as Mayor (especially Mayor during the Olympics) what would a truncated time in London look like?

 

[Thande]

It just occurred to me - if Boris was defeated he'd probably try to make it back into Parliament ASAP. Assuming things go as OTL, his first opportunity to do so would be the Corby by-election in November 2012 when Louise Mensch left - OTL Labour (temporarily) won that, but could Boris hold it for the Tories if he was selected?

Conversely, if he stood and lost due to UKIP's spoiler vote, would that be more of a millstone for his career and leave him looking like a has-been?

 

[Nomad]

I think Johnson would be able to recover. His defeat would be attributed to a difficult national environment, and he would still be given credit for winning in 2008 and for running Livingstone so close the second time. He would probably spend some time writing columns and doing panel shows before going back into the Commons. Perhaps he would wait until the next GE, or maybe he risks it and puts his name forward at a by election. I doubt he could overturn a 20% deficit in Corby-and I doubt he would want to try, but I wonder if he might have had a go at Newark, or maybe even Rochester and Strood. He might well have beaten Reckless in that situation, which would probably more than make up for the damage done by losing London in 2012.

The more interesting effect would be on Labour. Although he might be touted as such, I don't think Livingstone would ever make the step up to the party leadership, but in the short term, the left would probably be stronger by having a clear anti-austerity figurehead to rally around. But in the long run, I think it could actually butterfly away the Corbyn leadership by making it harder for him to secure sympathy nominations from the right of the party, because the hard left would be regarded as a more credible threat.

It is also worth remembering that all four MPs running in the 2016 Mayoral selection gave their nominations to Corbyn-likely to generate sympathy for their own campaigns among the grassroots. If Ken runs again, I think Corbyn loses at least Khan and Thomas' nomination, and possibly Lammy's too, which takes him below the threshold he needs.

Also, if the Labour mayoral nomination isn't open in 2016, that could mean that Abbot runs again instead of Corbyn-and I don't think she'd win even if she got on the ballot. It also means that Khan is still in Westminster. If he runs for the leadership-as he reportedly considered doing, I think he could win by harnessing the support of the left-as he did with Mayoral nomination. He could probably get Livingstone's support if he wanted it-he did endorse him for Mayor IOTL after all. If he doesn't run, he might row in behind Burnham and end up as Shadow Home or Foreign Secretary, putting him in a good place to be his potential successor.

 

[KingCrawa]

I think Johnson would be able to recover. His defeat would be attributed to a difficult national environment, and he would still be given credit for winning in 2008 and for running Livingstone so close the second time. He would probably spend some time writing columns and doing panel shows before going back into the Commons. Perhaps he would wait until the next GE, or maybe he risks it and puts his name forward at a by election. I doubt he could overturn a 20% deficit in Corby-and I doubt he would want to try, but I wonder if he might have had a go at Newark, or maybe even Rochester and Strood. He might well have beaten Reckless in that situation, which would probably more than make up for the damage done by losing London in 2012.

The more interesting effect would be on Labour. Although he might be touted as such, I don't think Livingstone would ever make the step up to the party leadership, but in the short term, the left would probably be stronger by having a clear anti-austerity figurehead to rally around. But in the long run, I think it could actually butterfly away the Corbyn leadership by making it harder for him to secure sympathy nominations from the right of the party, because the hard left would be regarded as a more credible threat.

It is also worth remembering that all four MPs running in the 2016 Mayoral selection gave their nominations to Corbyn-likely to generate sympathy for their own campaigns among the grassroots. If Ken runs again, I think Corbyn loses at least Khan and Thomas' nomination, and possibly Lammy's too, which takes him below the threshold he needs.

Also, if the Labour mayoral nomination isn't open in 2016, that could mean that Abbot runs again instead of Corbyn-and I don't think she'd win even if she got on the ballot. It also means that Khan is still in Westminster. If he runs for the leadership-as he reportedly considered doing, I think he could win by harnessing the support of the left-as he did with Mayoral nomination. If he doesn't, he might row in behind Burnham and end up as Shadow Home or Foreign Secretary, putting him in a good place to be his potential successor.

I want to live in this TL.

 

[Thande]

I think Johnson would be able to recover. His defeat would be attributed to a difficult national environment, and he would still be given credit for winning in 2008 and for running Livingstone so close the second time. He would probably spend some time writing columns and doing panel shows before going back into the Commons. Perhaps he would wait until the next GE, or maybe he risks it and puts his name forward at a by election. I doubt he could overturn a 20% deficit in Corby-and I doubt he would want to try, but I wonder if he might have had a go at Newark, or maybe even Rochester and Strood. He might well have beaten Reckless in that situation, which would probably more than make up for the damage done by losing London in 2012.

Then there's the possibility of Eastleigh...

The more interesting effect would be on Labour. Although he might be touted as such, I don't think Livingstone would ever make the step up to the party leadership, but in the short term, the left would probably be stronger by having a clear anti-austerity figurehead to rally around. But in the long run, I think it could actually butterfly away the Corbyn leadership by making it harder for him to secure sympathy nominations from the right of the party, because the hard left would be regarded as a more credible threat.

Very good point - and also if Ken L has gone mad by this point it might tar Corbyn by association.

 

[Alex Richards]

Then there's the possibility of Eastleigh...


Very good point - and also if Ken L has gone mad by this point it might tar Corbyn by association.

I suspect Eastleigh is a better shout for where he'd try and run than Corby. That might be enough to win, but considering UKIP were on the up, it might be that what we actually get is Boris in second behind the Lib Dems.

 

[Uhura's Mazda]

Very good point - and also if Ken L has gone mad by this point it might tar Corbyn by association.

I can't really avoid concluding that Ken's Unpleasantness would be more likely to arise with more frequent media appearances, and more likely to develop earlier due to the stresses of the job.

And bear in mind that he already had an antisemitism scandal during the 2012 campaign when he said that Jews wouldn't vote for him because they're all rich.

 

[Elektronaut]

It just occurred to me - if Boris was defeated he'd probably try to make it back into Parliament ASAP.

I don't really see why. There's more profit in him seeing out the rest of the parliament on the chat show circuit and as a leadership opposition gadfly in the Borisgraph and the tabloids. He walks into a safe seat for the next election, which at the time of course was expected to favour Labour (and then UKIP). He wouldn't see it as a positive to be part of the government.

There's no need for him to take a charge of the shite brigade at a Midlands or south coast marginal in a by-election.

The potential serious divergence comes after the election and how he is accommodated by Cam.

 

[Thande]

I don't really see why. There's more profit in him seeing out the rest of the parliament on the chat show circuit and as a leadership opposition gadfly in the Borisgraph and the tabloids.

Wouldn't he face public pressure to run every time a by-election comes up like Farage did for UKIP? (not that it stopped them in that case, of course). Sort of 'if you're criticising the Government's policy on XYZ then why aren't you trying to get back in to do better'?

 

[Elektronaut]

Wouldn't he face public pressure to run every time a by-election comes up like Farage did for UKIP? (not that it stopped them in that case, of course). Sort of 'if you're criticising the Government's policy on XYZ then why aren't you trying to get back in to do better'?

I don't see where it would come from. Not from his mates in the media nor from his then-mates the liberal middle-class, who would bank all his shit-stirring and funnehs and clowning with delight - and doubtless even pine about how they made the wrong choice as Ken gets increasingly nasally mad and starts creating trouble for the Chelsea tractor drivers et al.

He'd be in that dead zone of not being in active politics, which produces a totally different reaction to being a party leader like Farridge. Also, Farridge was a billy no-mates outside his party and his voters.

He'd do what Tarzan did after 86 and monopolise the rubber chicken circuit and work the constituencies.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I agree that Boris Johnson is likely to wait before trying for Commons again, build up his profile some more, sell his defeat in 2012 as "look how badly Cameron and Clegg's policies went down in London!" (and the crap parts of his legacy may end up being associated with Livingstone as he'll be mayor when some of them come home to roost). He'll do well. If Livingstone does melt down as we all think he will, Boris's time as mayor will end up remembered as "wasn't it great, having him and not Ken?"

Though Livingstone's going to be a big anti-austerity campaigner, clashing with the government, so just how long can he go and how bad can he get before enough Labour supporters and other lefties start to go "oh no"? I'd bet it'll be a lot. First he'd be giving Cameron one in the eye, then it'd "okay but sometimes you need a bastard", then "well he's sometimes good?", before finally "oh shit". And like Cameron said Miliband would be an ally of the SNP to scare English voters, would he start to imply Red Ed will be Red Ken on a national scale? I'm betting yes!

Of course it could be that losing London and Johnson passing the blame is enough of a thousand cuts that Miliband just about enters Downing Street. And then Mayor Livingstone's last year is spent feuding with a Labour PM again, but one who is more left-wing and in a more vulnerable position than Blair was i.e. he'd just look like a dick.