Was Ken really a drag on Labour?
Livingstone finished less than a point behind his party.
By George Eaton Published 05 May 2012 12:15
Throughout the London mayoral election, commentators (including myself) frequently noted that support for Ken Livingstone trailed support for Labour in the Assembly. The conclusion they drew was that an alternative candidate could have performed better. In the final YouGov poll, Ken underpolled his party by six points. Yet as Éoin Clarke noted this morning, the final results told a different story.
Ken won 40.3 per cent of the vote in the first round, less than a point behind Labour, which attracted 41.1 per cent. So, while Ken still trailed his party, the gap was nowhere near as large as previously thought. As Clarke notes, since Boris Johnson won 44 per cent, Labour would have needed a candidate who could outpoll his or her own party by three per cent. The reality, perhaps, is that any Labour candidate would have struggled against Boris, who successfully detached himself from the Conservatives and retained his unrivalled personal appeal.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















4 comments
NO COMMENT
If Ken wasn't the issue, they were very successful finding the very few Labour people who said so.
Doesn't it make more sense to compare the YouGov figures rather than party list vote to Ken's vote? The mathematics of the party list actively encourage you to opt for a smaller party.
This election was never going to be decided on first preference votes, so I'm not sure that the comparing the raw first round votes makes much sense. Isn't the real question whether a hypothetical non-Ken Labour candidate could have done better at attracting second preference votes?