I’ve got a confession to make. On 1st May, I will be giving my second preference vote to … Ken Livingstone.
I won’t be doing this with a song in my heart or anything resembling enthusiasm. Livingstone is a divisive and lonely figure who is incapable of taking criticism or listening to anyone outside of his inner circle of cronies. He is profoundly anti-civil liberties, being both an ardent supporter of ID cards and a supporter of execution-style shootings on the streets of London. He surrounds himself with extremists like Yusuf al Qaradawi and negotiates totemic deals with South American demagogues seemingly out of pure contrariness.
Finally, he is proposing to throw away all the good achieved by his single greatest achievement – the congestion charge – by allowing thousands of low-ish emission cars to drive through the capital without paying the charge, in doing so belching out millions of tons of extra CO2 emissions and increasing congestion. All so he can wage some misguided class war on “Chelsea Tractors”.
Make no mistake, Livingstone is neither a liberal nor a progressive. No, my reason for giving him my second choice is purely down to the fact that Boris Johnson would be ten times worse. I’d already decided this months ago, but Johnson’s appearance on Newsnight on Tuesday confirmed this. Having been assured by Tories a few months ago that the buffoon on Have I Got News For You is not the “real” Boris I have patiently waited for this real deal to emerge. I don’t accept the Labour charge that Johnson is a racist on the simple grounds that for it to be true Johnson would have had to have given the matter some thought rather than simply blathering out the first thing that came into his head.
If the shambles that we witnessed on Tuesday is Boris on his best, election winning, behaviour, God alone knows what he would be like running London in a genuine crisis. It is an idea that genuinely chills me to the bone.
So that’s who I will be giving my second preference to; I’m just glad that my first preference for Brian Paddick is a positive choice. But I’m starting to despair at the number of Labour supporters wagging their fingers in my face and lecturing me at how it is in some way my moral duty to vote – even campaign – for their candidate. A perfect example of this is Michael Calderbank over on the Progress website, who can’t resist the low blow of talking about the Lib Dems having a “straight choice” (yes Michael, we know what by-election you’re referring to – aren’t you clever? Just because your candidate hangs out with homophobes, it doesn’t mean you have to stoop to his level).
What really gets under my skin about such posturing is that the selfsame Labour activists are not prepared to reciprocate. Labour has done a deal with the Green Party to steer people towards giving Sian Berry their second preference votes. This means that if Livingstone’s campaign does come unstuck (and it may yet), the official policy of the Labour Party will be to hand victory over to Boris Johnson. Not a single Labour activist I have encountered has told me they are prepared to break the party whip and give Paddick their second choice just in case. There is no website, or Facebook group, advocating some kind of vote swap – merely po-faced hectoring.
None of this should be any surprise to people who have followed the anti-consensual nature of Labour in power across the country. It’s always one sided. It’s always parasitical. They demand partnership like spoiled children while not even bothering to look up the meaning of the word.
I’ll be giving Ken Livingstone my second preference not because I believe in some kind of progressive alliance but because I’m not insane enough to put a shock haired clown in one of the most powerful elected offices in the land. It isn’t a favour I expect to be returned by any Labour activist. Until it is, spare me the lectures.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Suitably inspired, I return to Suffolk
Lord Bonkers' Diary: My new friends with the webbed back feet and scaly tails
Investment, investment, investment.
Definitely a Lib Dem conference!
Ed Davey tries to name all the Lib Dem MPs while on a roller coaster
Fraser's West End ward surgeries later today #dundeewestend
What's next?
Simon R
Nigel Jones
Roland
Joe Bourke
Matt (Bristol)
83 Comments
Interesting and well written. I think these are all teething pains while we adjust to a more plural political system and the myriad voting systems that come with it. FPTP breeds tribalism and while our body politic is in transit to a post FPTP system/s these debates will flare up.
Great piece.
“…spare me the lectures…”
That won’t stop’em, of course.
Good piece. Can definitely tell you’ll be marking your second choice with a sense of regret come May 1st.
Yep, I am in total agreement – this is my position also. Not a gladly given 2nd pref but resolute in my desire to keep the Tories out.
I will be voting for Brian Paddick, but will not use my second choice because I could not bear to vote for either of the terrible twosome.
At least, a Lib Dem behaving responsibly! You say that Labour activists won’t reciprocate – perhaps you’re forgetting that during the Newsnight Debate that Ken himself said that he would give his 2nd pref to Paddick had he not already committed to Berry. You may end up with far more prefs cast for the LDs from Labour people because of that…
“At least, a Lib Dem behaving responsibly!”
Please tell me you know how heavily steeped in maximum strength irony that statement is. Please.
“…Ken himself said that he would give his 2nd pref to Paddick had he not already committed to Berry. You may end up with far more prefs cast for the LDs from Labour people because of that…”
Hark! The generosity! Thank you, dear Ken, for passing us your hypothetical THIRD vote. Thank you for a statement equivalent to “Brian, I’d vote for you over Boris, my closest rival”.
Now indeed we can look forward to hordes of Labour voters, having heard Ken’s kind words, automatically second preferencing Brian. Wonderful, how may we pay you back? I know, let’s form a ‘progressive’ coalition, eh? I’ll give Hugo a call; maybe he can fly over for the state-funded piss-up.
Should Lib Dems not be salivating at the prospect of a Henley by-election if Boris wins.
Surely not even Boris would dare try to do that many jobs?
Well written article. London doesn’t need or deserve someone who can’t even speak without stumbling.
Glad you wrote that. I suspect I’ll withhold my second pref in the end, but I have felt deeply conflicted. I was stunned by Boris’ utter ineptitude on Newsnight. Like you, I’d anticipated someone fully media-trained and tricked out for battle. Instead I heard a sixth-form debater who’d neglected to bone up on his facts. Very odd.
I agree with what almost all of what Peter writes in this good article – and yet I do think there’s another important angle to this dilemma, as I set out here.
We should be putting our efforts into getting Labour people to give their first preference to Paddick – because that is the best bet for stopping Boris. Paddick beats Boris if they are the last two; Ken might not. If Ken and Boris are the last two, the Labour peoples’ second preferences for Ken will count as much as their first preferences would have done
Thanks Diversity. I’m sure others will point out the flaw in what you have written.
My second preference as worked out semi-scientifically ought to go to Paddick and probably would do if I were a Londoner. Berry comes third as I’m not an airport botherer.
Being realistic my 2nd preference would not get used however as Ken will be in the last two barring some crazy late swing. Lib Dem second preferences however WILL matter and will help decide whether it is Johnson or Livingstone. I don’t think the former could run a whelk stall and I don’t think some perceived slight over not having Ken’s own second preference alone should lead any Lib Dem to vote for Johnson. This is too important for petulence to set in.
If you want Johnson as mayor then fair enough. Otherwise wise up, hold your nose and put Ken second.
I wish Lib Dems would use the same process I’ve done and stop the smearage.
The idea that Ken supports the killing of JLDeM is wrong. Rather than believing it was a terrible mistake but that the policy is not intrinsically wrong and that the police must not be too phased to shoot in a situation where all the intelligence and processes ARE right and they can save 50 people from a terrorist bomb.
It matters little to me whether you or I agree with Livingstone on that or not but it does matter that this position which I believe I am accurately representing is serially misrepresented on LDV as support for street executions.
Some of the other characterisations rankle too. But that one is really pretty disturbing.
PS The link to Vote Match is HERE.
. . .being both an ardent supporter of ID cards and a supporter of execution-style shootings on the streets of London.
I’d have to agree with Chris there. Does nobody check these articles over any more?
I think you should reconsider this decision – the only language Labour understand is to be grinded into the ground – voting for them or aggrandising them just makes them reveal their fundamental character flaw – bullying arrogance!
I have no difficulty in giving Ken my second preference. I admire him for introducing the congestion charge and I trust him more to do the right thing on the policies that I care about, namely the on environment.
That said, I strongly object to the way he abuses his power, spending local taxpayer’s money on propaganda to keep him in power. In addition I think he says some really stupid things sometimes.
However compare Ken’s foibles to Boris, and the choice is not a good one…
Although I agree with the conclusion of Peter’s article, I think it is really over the top to say that Ken supports people being executed in the streets, although I was surprised to see that he supports the introduction of ID cards. I checked on Google and that is the case, although as mayor of London he has little say on this.
As for the second choice argument, it makes a difference if there is a reason to believe that Brian is overtaking Ken and will need Ken’s transfers to beat Boris. At this moment in time, Ken has grounds for believing that this is unlikely, so he can happily pick whoever he likes for second preference and not have to concern himself that it would make any difference.
I feel sorry for Londoners, the only people who do not have the luxury of being able to completely ignore the existence of Boris Johnson 🙁
If I lived in London I too would be puttin Livingstone as my second preference. The idea of having that clown Boris Johnson in charge of our Capital City is just about too awful to bear.
I admire Ken Livingstone for introducing the congestion charge. I even thought about forming a new pressure group “neo-classical economists for Red Ken”, although I am not sure that he would have appreciated it.
But I will not give him my second preference. He has been absolutely feeble on the corruption issue. And that matters more to me than anything else. It reminds me of 1997, when I would have given my second vote to Labour because I was ashamed of the Major administration.
I don’t know if Boris would be a good Mayor. Being bumbling on tv is not the biggest issue. The issue is whether he can pull together a team who will be effective. The Spectator did not collapse, and I doubt London will either.
So for me, it is easy: Brian 1, Boris 2.
And yes, a Henley by-election would be a nice bonus. If the Tories win, that is not news. If we win, now that would be news… And we could, couldn’t we?
Lots here to get my teeth into. Thanks for the positive comments.
K – as has already been pointed out, Livingstone’s pledge to vote for Paddick as his number two if he hadn’t already pledged to vote Sian Berry 2 is completely empty rhetoric. Fundamentally, if his campaign gets in trouble and some major scandal breaks next week resulting in his vote plunging – he will hand victory to Johnson. I accept that is a hypothetical but it is a much more credible hypothetical than Berry magically becoming one of the two most popular candidates. If you think my scenario is fanciful, consider the fairy stories that Labour are basing their second preference choice on.
Jeremy Hargreaves – it is an interesting argument and I have some sympathy for it. But I also think it is equally possible that Johnson will just go underground, the Evening Standard will cover up every cock up he makes and the rest of the media will ignore London politics in the same way that they have done for eight years. The only scenario I can envisage that would highlight the true awfulness that would be a Johnson Mayorship would be another 7/7 type event. I may be cynical, but I wouldn’t wish that on London.
Chris Paul – re execution-style killings on the streets of London. My problem with Livingstone is that I can’t imagine the police doing something that he would be prepared to stand up to them over. Jean Charles de Menezes was stalked and then shot five times in the head. That isn’t the police making a mistake under extreme pressure that is a revenge killing. All Livingstone has done is to wash his hands of the whole business. I’m amazed anyone can pretend that isn’t a scandal.
Am I being overly harsh? Possibly, but given the seriousness of the situation a degree of moral outrage is appropriate in my view. I’m not aware of Labour politicos ever being shy and retiring when it comes to handing out constructive criticism though.
John – “bullying arrogance” is a term I associate with the Conservatives as well, though.
Tim Leunig – the point about dealing with corruption is an important one and it is another that gives me pause for thought. If Johnson could convince me he would be any better in such a situation perhaps my attitude would change. But all I see is a signed up member of the Old Etonians / Bullingdon Club network. I might not like Ken’s cronies, but Boris’ buddies would be just as bad.
Since trackbacks don’t show up here, I’ve posted a response to this here:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/04/10/smearing-ken-livingstone/
Ah, so in a choice between the corrupt and the wrong, as usual politicians urge the corrupt choice. Shame, I thought we were moving beyond the monumental failures of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” style policy.
There are some principles higher than “the right kind of politics” and honesty is one of them. I’m disappointed that Lib Dems are missing that.
… And as for the utter hypocrisy of lecturing Lib Dems about the importance of the 2nd vote while urging their own supporters to throw away their own by voting Green, it really is laughable. Ken might as well have said “Yeh, we’ve been arsing around, but it’s up to you to be mature about it.”
Spot on, Mark, well put.
Are the Liberal party fielding a`candidate in the London mayor elections?
Ken Livingstone has his faults, rank hypocrisy being the most visible.
His atheism and secularism hardly chime with his erstwhile apologies for the clerical-fascist IRA. And his 1980s womanising sits rather oddly with his onetime support for radical feminists who say all heterosexual acts are rape.
Ken’s currying favour with reactionary Moslems certainly grates, as does his channelling of public money through cronies like Lee Jasper, and his increasingly cocky, ill-tempered public persona.
Having said all that, it is difficult to deny that Livingstone has done a reasonably good job for London.
By contrast, no-one is in any doubt that Johnson would do a terrible job (to the extent that he would do any kind of job at all).
But the difference between Livingstone and Johnson is more than one of political honesty or competence.
Johnson is a typical Old Etonian Oxbridge Hooray Henry who regards ordinary people as filth. Livingstone, by contrast, feels himself to be part of the human race. Unlike Johnson, he doesn’t hate Londoners.
Unless one wishes to waste one’s vote on a Green, Livingstone has to be the Lib Dem second choice.
Mark Wright – are you serious? I’ve just spent the last 24 hours listening to Tory MPs piously assuring me that the Saudi Government should be allowed to blackmail the UK government into not investigating bribery allegations. And now you’re telling me that Boris Johnson, a fully signed up member of the Old Boys network who would never have got where he is without it, is the ANTI-corruption candidate?
That is by association, which seems somewhat different to running a corrupt office.
James et al., it seems that there is something in the Lib Dem code that means you have to repeat the mantra “Lib Dems hate Tories” twenty times every morning.
Let’s face it, if Boris had been born in Scotland the odds are that he would be a Lib Dem and you would all be singing his praises. His instincts are undoubtedly liberal, and his written work shows a phenomenal level of analytical ability. He also has that rare and valuable ability to create a buzz within an organisation, to help people understand they are part of something special.
Of course we can play the popular media game of hanging people for their faults, and if you really want to see an evil, scheming, intollerant, racist idiot then I am sure you find a way of seeing precisely that. Beauty is, after all, in the eyes of the beholder.
But that aside, Boris represents so much of the British cosmopolitan liberal tradition I find it staggering that the Lib Dem activist base (from which most of the posters on here seem to come) are so quick to look for the faults and go running into the arms of Ken.
Passing Tory – as I write, only 34% in the poll on this page have signalled intention to vote for Ken.
Julian, I am well aware of that but I don’t pay too much attention to such polls. I reckon that I could have Boris ahead by a mile on it if I so chose. There just seem to be a far greater number of active Ken agitators amongst the more active Lib Dems (e.g. those who post). I guess the title of the thread is may be a bit of a clue.
I fact, I think that many Lin Dem voters (as opposed to activists) are not so inbued with party rivalries and will give Boris their second preferences.
Hmm, I can only see three comments from LDs above which clearly say they’ll give their second preference to Ken. The majority do not.
Julian, if you are saying that Boris has latent support not represented here then it would be foolish of me to argue (also partly my fault for thinking you were Justin H and toning my replies accordingly. memo to self: must learn to read 🙂
Somehow I am frequently called ‘Justin’ (including this morning at work), and have been since I was a wee Julian H.
My point is not that there is latent support for Boris, more that it’s unfair to say that the ‘LD activist base’ has gone ‘running into the arms of Ken’.
There are other options, including ‘none of the above’ and undecided – a lot of us seem to be falling under these.
I see my comment has been censored. Well I`ll keep it polite then. I have no objection to Liberals operating as little-Labour and supporting a hard left totalitarian corrupt City Hall class warrior.
I do object if under these circumstances they present themselves as equidistant between Conservatives and Labour at the General election thus misleading the electorate . Furthermore if, as seems likely , a deal will be struck with Brown for some warped voting system and Cabinet seats then wavering voters must be told that is what they are voting for ,. We are aware that Clegg has been in negotiations with Brown and in the light of the intergalactic contempt shown for the voter over Lisbon it must be assumed we are not going to get the truth until after the votes are cast..
We clearly see from this thread the animosity that Liberals for the most part have for England’s largest Party and the relative chumminess with Labour . That is all perfect valid and is of course born out by the long alliance between Liberals and New Labour when their criticism came from, the left if at all. You simply cannot go on pretending that a vote Liberal is other than a vote for Brown when the default position is so clearly Labour-lite .
Bearing in mind that Livingstone is left of New labour and Boris Johnson is a very Liberal , in the true sense , Conservative with socially Liberal attitudes those of us fighting to remove Liberals in swing Conservative seats can very reasonable say . Vote Clegg, get Brown , Vote Baker , get Brown Vote Liberal ,get Brown . Some of you may remember we once said …vote Blair get Brown.
We were right.
I see Labour and Liberals as like advertising homogenous products like soap of toothpaste. You get lots of brands because whenever you have a new one you take some of your own clients but also some of the other player’s. One will be aimed at ..sensitive skin ..one at tooth whitening but the truth is its all the same stuff in the box
“Some of you may remember we once said …vote Blair get Brown.
We were right.”
Good grief, with such insight you must be a bunch of demons on the betting markets.
Gosh, the Tory Trolls really are throwing their toys out of the pram, aren’t you? As far as I’m concerned the LDs are supposed to be big enviromentalists with a liberal attiude to social Briain. In terms of casting their 2nd pref it is fairly obvious to everyone, therefore, that any Liberal endorsing a candidate who believes in the car against the future of the planet and calls the 30% of people who live in London “piccanies with water melon smiles” and refers to civil partnerships as “three men and a dog” relationships is voting against the LDs own principles and this BEFORE we even assess his complete lack of suitability to run a city of London’s international standing. I howled with laughter during the Newsnight debate when Johnson insisted on arguing (in response to Brian Paddick) that he had managed 50 rather than 20 people at the Spectator magazine and this made him qualified to run the Met, LDA, GLA, Olympics, Housing Corporation, London Underground and Overground, the Buses, and the London Climate Change Agency. Do the right thing, Lib Dems. Ignore the Tory Trolls and vote Ken no 2!
Thanks for that insight, K. I guess you must live at the red end of the yellow spectrum.
In this election, I’m on the “Ken” spectrum rather than the “red” spectrum. Ken has simply been a superb Mayor who bleeds, live and breathes London. I will be gutted if we replace him with someone who has not shown any TRUE COMMITMENT to London in all the years he’s been alive.
Is that the official NuLab spin, now? Not about Labour. Not about Brown. Its just about Ken and his cuddly relationship with London (not least all those quangos and vested interests rich for the picking).
K: “Gosh, the Tory Trolls really are throwing their toys out of the pram, aren’t you?”
I agree, but you Labour trolls are chucking a fair few rattles and teddies out too.
This is a fascinating thread, because it illustrates clearly WHY there is a L-D party. It’s because neither the Labour nore Conservative parties represent the interests of a majority of people in this country, or in London. Simple isn’t it?
“Is that the official NuLab spin, now? Not about Labour. Not about Brown. Its just about Ken and his cuddly relationship with London (not least all those quangos and vested interests rich for the picking).”
I don’t know about NuLab, I just know about who I want representing me as a Londoner. Party doesn’t come into it. I voted for Ken in 2000 when he was an independent and would vote for him whichever party he joined. He’s the best person for the job. Simpl.e
Why is there a Lib Dem party. Oh can I answer this one, pleease !?
Well, maybe another time. I think it is actually a very interesting question if you try to approach it objectively (odds of which are ~0 on here; even if I succeeded I would be accused of being partisan)
“It’s because neither the Labour nore Conservative parties represent the interests of a majority of people in this country, or in London. Simple isn’t it?”
And FH, I would be more inclined to vote for the LDs if I actually knew what they were FOR rather than what they’re AGAINST. That’s why it astounds me so many LDs are seriously thinking of voting for Johnson. Where I live, the LDs are always running huge campaigns on the environment. I can’t understand how any LD could therefore seriously give their 2nd pref to Johnson over Ken.
hey, K, keep that red flag flying!
Not this time. It’s all about Ken for me this election.
Of course it is, K … spin away. I can scarcely see the Victoria St puppet strings tugging away as you write that … honest guv.
Riiiight?! I’m not a member of the Labour party for your information. I don’t care who we end up with in the London Assembly. My only interest is in Ken being reelected Mayor, Labour or not Labour.
Good grief, get a room you two.
Over and out. Think I’ve made my opinions on this subject perfectly clear. Until May 1st, my Lib Dem friends. Vote Paddick 1, Ken 2!
“Vote Paddick 1, Ken 2!”
Ok. I will if you will. 🙂
Sesenco, why do you write:
“His atheism and secularism hardly chime with his erstwhile apologies for the clerical-fascist IRA.”
In what way are the IRA “clerical’? They and Sinn Fein, their mouthpiece, never make any reference to religion in their publicity material or excuses for their action. They always claim to be fighting for Irish republicanism and against British imperialism, and not for the RC Church.
Fascist, I’ll give you, they have many of the features of classical fascism.
My understanding is that the more clerical vote in Northern Ireland tends to go to the SDLP, although they too tend to keep clear of overt links to Catholicism in their publicity material.
perhaps it becos I’m not a Londoner but I just don’t understand the level of psyhco drama on this Thread. You’ve been offered a very vague improvement on FPTP for a single local election. use your first vote for the party candidate (who happens to be good) and then make an informed judgement about the least worst alternative of the big two. Or don’t bother if you feel that strongly.
Why has it been elevated into some sort of moral dilema?
If we had an elected Mayor in Leeds I’d probably vote second preference for Labour on the performance of the Council groups but could easierly be persuaded to vote second for some tory candidates over certain labour ones. You are after all assessing individuals for an Executive role.
I dispair at the blantant tribalism some people are showing on here.
“In what way are the IRA clerical?”
Well, for a start, their long-term objective is to remove from Ireland all persons they do not consider to be Irish (“the reconquest or Ireland by the Irish people”, they call it); and their definition of “Irish” includes the words “Roman Catholic” (plus a bit of DNA chucked in). As the founder of Sinn Fein, Arthur Griffith, said: “No Protestant can call himself an Irishman.”
The IRA’s most famous don, Eamon De Valera, was about as fervent a Catholic as you can get. He even held a requiem mass for Adolf Hitler (thanks for bombing Dublin), and supported Hitler’s policy against the Jews.
Then we have the IRA in action. All Sinn Fein/IRA events are awash with clerics. Remember those funerals where suicides were given Christian burial, contrary to the Vatican’s own rules? Mourners could hardly get to the graveside for priests.
Anyone who has ever met an IRA supporter knows that their notion of Irishness means “Roman Catholic” first, second, third, fourth and fifth, and what’s in one’s blood a faint sixth.
The so-called “loyalist” paramilitaries are, of course, just as contemptible in their own way (but usually more stupid).
(By the way. At university I met an IRA supporter who was (i) a devout Catholic, (ii) a member of the Liberal Party, (iii) a supporter of the Soviet Union, and (iv) rabidly anti-Semitic. Get your head round that one!)
Equidistant means we are equally distant from both Labour and Tory failures, not equally close.
I think an interesting question is how many Tory voters will place Livingstone as their second preference – and vice versa.
Seeing as the both Labour and the Conservatives are now so similar it wouldn’t surprise me that anyone who can hold their nose would be able to block both left and right nostrils when doing the dirty deed.
It puzzles me that the reason a lot people refuse to give their 2nd preference to Berry because they feel she’s got no chance of getting in. Surely that sort of cynicism is one of the key reasons she won’t get in? If people actually voted, or didn’t vote, on the basis of policy, she might stand a more realistic.
Admittedly, she’d be unlikely to anyway. But a cynical dismissal of her as a wasted vote doesn’t help.
Nor, incidentally, does that sort of mindset help the Lib Dems in general elections. They’re perceived as being unable to win a majority, or even break past being the third party. So many people simply vote for the party they least mind winning instead.
I was thinking of giving my second preference to Sian Berry, until she asked people to give their second preference to Ken Livingstone. I don’t think that parties should be telling their supporters what second preference they should express.
Nick Cohen & Co. — aka “Progressive Against Ken” — appear to be responsible for this rather good piece of campaign work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muJnWQlIHaI
The conclusion:
“Hold your noses. Paddick 1st preference. Johnson 2nd preference.”
As I’ve said, I like the first half of that advice.
I don’t think that parties should be telling their supporters what second preference they should express.
Why ever not? If Boris wasn’t such an idiot, I hope we would be giving the nod to the Conservatives. I must say, leaving aside the “hold your noses” stuff, I think the aforementioned campaign video is terrific.
“I was thinking of giving my second preference to Sian Berry, until she asked people to give their second preference to Ken Livingstone. I don’t think that parties should be telling their supporters what second preference they should express.”
She’s not telling them what to do. She’s saying that, of the other candidates, she feels Ken holds view closest to her own. Consequently, she recommends voting for him above the others. There’s no hint of “telling” in it, with the quasi-obligation that it implies…
The reason why it is pointless giving a second preference vote to the Green is because this is a stupid electoral system for a stupid position. (For the stupidity of the position see the succinct comments by Matthew Huntbach). For there to be any point in expressing a second preference you have to a). have a reasonable suspicion that your favoured candidate is not going to come in the top two and b). have a preference between the candidates you guess will be in the top two. In order to guess who might be in the top two you presumably need to take some notice of opinion polls, none of which register a Green challenge strong enough for even their candidate to believe that she might be in the run-off. If as a voter you have a preference between Ken and Boris then it makes sense to express a second preference: otherwise it’s pointless.
Hmm. Fair enough. Yes, second preferences in the actual mayoral vote can be fairly academic, I’ll admit. It’s more the principle of refusing to vote for a candidate simply because you feel they’ve no chance of winning I object to, for reasons I’ve already explained.
For god`
Lawrence that is a lie . Whatever the Conservative candidate Liberal activists would vote Labour . Liberals voters are another thing and many in my area do not see themselves as wet socialsits as most here do.
Such people may vote Conswervative and the sight of the Liberal Party soi disant supporting Ken Livimgstone will be a help to me.
Incioentally I have had two comments deleted . Typical and sums it up.
Newmania, the first comment wasn’t deleted, it got held up automatically in moderation because it had a few unfortunate – and unrelated – buzzwords in it. By the time I noticed this, you had restated your argument and it was on the thread, so I left it at that. Don’t know about the second comment, when was that? Can’t see it in spam or moderation.
Please remember that this is basically a voluntary activist-run site. There really isn’t a great ghostly team of party moderators sitting out there watching the forums. We all have lives and jobs that do not allow us to hang around LDV and take care of trolls’ feelings all the time.
Alix, you disappoint me … you have a life outside LDV? 🙂
I meanwhile am just a phantom AI construct who evaporates into thin air as soon as my keyboard is removed …
Are you a moderator then, Alix? Who else is a moderator, or is that a forbidden question? 🙂
That was me^
I should imagine, Newmania, that your comments have been deleted because they are not very coherent.
Newmania, describing liberals as nothing more than wet socialists is akin to calling conservatives wet psychopaths. Of course neither are, but it is easy to allow limited evidence to create prejudice.
Although I shouldn’t admit this, I have a sneaking affection for newmania. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that I’m preparing for an afternoon and night drinking and have already started, but he does have a certain charm.
Aha, PT, that would explain so much! You’re a philosophical tautology – when you exist, you are only ever “passing”.
Everybody on the About Us page has administrator status, so we can all go in and moderate, but it’s really a question of when someone has five minutes spare to do it.
Leavingsoon is in the lead, but only narrowly. The Greens are doing fairly well, and probably would be doing better if they hadn’t allied with Leavingsoon. Who will be victorious? 🙂
Asquith, I too derive a certain enjoyment from Newmania, not so much from the ill-judged guff he actually writes but just because I like trying to imagine what he must be like – I picture him with a very red face, perpetually quivering with indignation about the state of the world. As to his thought processes as he writes, I imagine him thinking “Socialists! All of them! Brown, Clegg, Cameron, my postman, they’re all in on it! I must tell the world, let them know! Why can’t everyone see it? WHY CAN’T EVERYONE SEE IT?
Newmy (if I may call you that) am I anywhere near the truth? Go on mate, give me a clue.
That sounds a bit like the typical Spectator reader. The Daily Mail after 3 bottles of wine 🙂
One or two people here seem to think I don’t understand the voting system. Let me explain it’s implications to them:
In an election where second preferences only count as between the top two candidates on first preferences:
– The logical priorities for a supporter of candidate A are first to get A into the last two, and second to keep the most likely challenger, B, out of the last two. If the supporter is sure enough of A being in the last two, the supporter should give first preference to C in the hope of excluding B from the last two. If C does not reach the last two, the supporter’s second preference for A will count as much as his/her first preference would have done. The only risk is that C, after scraping into the last two, will win on massive second preferences. Therefore the supporter should tell others to give second prefernces to D, not C. This is part of why Ken has tied to encourage second preferences for Sian Berry (Ken, of course, does not care where his first preferences’ second prefs go); if Brian should get into the last two, it is better for Ken that Brian has fewer second prefs from those eliminated.
– If someone is a keen opponent of (e.g.) B, and not particularly a supporter of any other candidate, the priority is to keep B out of the last two. The way the opponent of B is most likely to achieve this is to give a first preference to C. If C does not crowd B out of the last two, the opponent’s second preference for A will still count as a vote against B. So the tactic sacrifices nothing.
It follows that the logical tactic for those more opposed to Boris than pro-Ken is to give vote Paddick 1, Livingstone 2. By the same token, the best tactic for those more opposed to Ken than pro Boris is to vote Paddick 1, Johnson 2.
It also follows that anyone who is keen on Ken, afraid of Boris and thinks that Ken will beat Brian in a run off should vote Paddick 1, Livingstone 2; and vice versa the keen on Boris, afraid of Ken group who are confident that Boris will beat Brian in a run off should vote Paddick 1, Johnson 2.
There are some massive tactical first preferences for Paddick out there. We should be chasing them; not worrying so much about our second preferences.
There are some massive tactical first preferences for Paddick out there. We should be chasing them; not worrying so much about our second preferences.
Couldn’t agree more. Two weeks to go. Let’s get the anoraks off and go to work.
One or two people here seem to think I don’t understand the voting system. Let me explain it’s implications to them.
I fear that, if anything, you understand the system too well, Diversity – hence your somewhat verbose explanation. Please allow me to provide my own advice for London voters.
First preference: State your first preference for Mayor of London.
Second preference: State your second preference for Mayor of London.
Because it really is as simple as that.
This thread seems to have fizzled out, but I will reply to a few things:
1. I seem to be accused of smearing and siding with Livingstone in equal measure. Fair enough.
2. I reject the claim that any of my “smears” are dishonest. Referring to the De Menezes case, Sunny seems to have forgotten that the Old Bailey found the Met had failed in their duty of care to the public and yet chose not to lay the blame lower in the chain of command. The buck has to stop somewhere and for justice to be seen to be done someone should have taken the fall. An innocent man was killed in quite a shocking manner. Actions speak louder than words. Backing Blair while condemning the shooting is a typical example of Livingstone having it both ways.
3. I also maintain that it is fair to say that Livingstone is a difficult person to work with. He has an appallingly thin skin that gets him into trouble all the time. He is incapable of accepting criticism. Incidents such as the al Qaradawi lovefest and calling the Standard journalist a concentration camp guard are perfect examples of him refusing to back down and show a degree of magnamity even when he is clearly in the wrong. That is bad for London.
4. In fairness to Livingstone I have to admit to finding the charges of corruption a little overblown. Livingstone has been under more intense scrutiny than any other politician in recent history, especially from the Rothermere Press. He is clearly guilty of extreme cronyism but cronyism, like (gasp!) whipping does have its place in any political system. More to the point, cronyism is all but encouraged by the way the Greater London Authority is constituted. Johnson and even Paddick will inevitably have their cronies. Johnson however appears utterly disinterested in changing the system. I therefore see how it is a distinguishing issue between him and Livingstone.
5. Sian Berry has not merely expressed personal support of Livingstone; she is urging her supporters to give Livingstone their second choices.
6. Saying that giving Sian Berry a second preference vote is a waste is a simple matter of fact. If we were using a less pernicious electoral system, such as AV, there would of course be no problem with giving the Greens a number 2 – it might not achieve anything but it would at least be an honest choice. But the SV system used means that is a luxury we can’t afford.
7. The bottom line is that if you would rather have Paddick than either Johnson or Livingstone, your only rational course of action is to vote Paddick 1, and whichever out of Tweedledee and Tweedledumb you least object to 2. Giving any other candidate your first choice is merely to guarantee that the election is between Labour and the Tories.
Sesenco, I had in mind the modern IRA, so PIRA if you like, rather than the historical.
I quite agree that many Catholic clerics have been far too indulgent to the Republican movement in Ireland, nevertheless the leadership of the RC Church in Ireland has tended towards the moderate e.g. it was pro-treaty in the civil war.
While members of the PIRA may certainly be culturally Catholic, they have avoided overt mention of Catholicism in their propaganda, as I said. Ever heard Adams or McGuinness saying they are fighting for Catholicism? Or even mentioning it?
Sure, they make a thing about private devotion, and in that I find the position of RC clerics who indulge them sickening, I wish more had the courage to turn them away, but maybe that’s easy to say here.
As for funerals for suicides, I think the time when they were buried without ceremony has long gone. What you assert to be RC practice isn’t – I can think of several full RC funerals of people who committed suicide in my own experience in just the past few years.