The real reasons Boris won and Ken lost

Both sides have drawn the wrong lessons from the result.

“His message, tone, strategy and agenda was wrong. This should not have been close” tweeted one Blairite critic of Ken Livingstone as it became clear he had lost. “It's not a victory for the Tories, it’s a victory for The Evening Standard and their relentless anti-Ken propaganda” tweeted one of Livingstone’s supporters, whilst Ken lashed out at “media bias” during his concession speech.
 
In reality both analyses contain some truth but fundamentally miss the mark. It is true that the coverage of this campaign, especially from the Evening Standard was unremittingly hard on Ken and easy going on Boris. As the results came in last night, even one of Boris’s biggest supporters told me privately how surprised they’d been at the sheer scale of fawning the paper has done over Johnson in the past few weeks.
 
But after four decades in politics, Ken should not be surprised at being attacked by newspapers. At every election he has stood in, the right-wing press has attacked him and at most of those elections, Ken has won. That he failed to do so this time is not because of what he describes as the “smears” against him, but because he was simply no longer able to overcome them.
 
Similarly the Blairite’s claim that Ken’s agenda had turned off voter’s does not stand up to much scrutiny. In all the polling that was done, Ken’s policies of lower fares and his measures to reduce the cost of living, were overwhelmingly supported by the public, with Johnson’s main policy of small cuts to council tax barely registering.
 
The problem was not Ken's agenda, but the fact that it was Ken calling for that agenda. The sad truth is that after 41 years in London politics, too many Londoners have simply stopped listening to him. Every politician has a shelf life, a point where voters look at them and coldly decide to give another product a go. For Ken that happened in 2008 and he has spent the past four years failing to come to terms with it.
 
However much we might like London Mayoral elections to be about the future of the city or “a referendum on the government”, they have never been about policies or political parties. They have always been about personalities. In 2000 Labour were running high nationally, and Tony Blair was still very popular. Yet the Labour candidate he imposed on London came a humiliating third in that election whilst Ken came first, even with a split Labour vote.
 
Similarly in 2004, Labour had a disastrous set of local and European election results and the Tories did well. Yet in London, Ken managed to romp home for the second time against the Conservative candidate Steven Norris. In both cases it wasn’t the political party of the candidate that decided the result, but the personalities of the candidates themselves.
 
In a personality contest between Ken and Norris, Ken won both times. In a personality contest between Ken and Boris, Ken lost both times. If you keep on asking the same question, then the chances are you will keep on getting the same answer.
 
The Conservative Party are also showing signs of taking all the wrong lessons from last night’s election results. Already the case is being built by many Tory-supporting commentators and politicians that Boris won because he is a “real Conservative” in favour of tax cutting, personal freedom and an aggressive attitude towards Europe.
 
But what this fails to grasp is that while Boris preached all of these things to Daily Telegraph readers, he has not practised any of them in his main job as London Mayor. Far from being a radical Conservative reformer, Boris has almost entirely accepted the settlement left for him by Ken Livingstone at City Hall.
 
Under Boris, spending on infrastructure, and the wages of Tube workers has risen whilst the mass bureaucracy at Transport for London has barely been touched. The multicultural festivals, diversity agendas and environmental projects have all continued whilst Boris has stretched every sinew to persuade Londoners that he is not the mad swivel-eyed Tory that Labour had tried to persuade them he was.
 
Some of the more unhinged elements of the Tory party believe that David Cameron’s support for gay marriage has cost them at this week’s elections. Yet in the one election where the party has done well, they have done so with a candidate who has not only championed gay rights but who actually led London’s Gay Pride march whilst wearing a pink Stetson.
 
If the Conservatives use these election results as an excuse to drift even further right then they will suffer far worse results in the years to come. Similarly if Labour use Ken’s loss as an excuse to follow the Tories in the same direction, then they too will suffer at the polls.
 
Boris Johnson did not win last night because of any “real Conservative” agenda and Ken Livingstone did not lose because of a failure to sign up to the Blairite cause. Boris won because Londoners saw him as the most charismatic and likeable candidate. Ken lost, because after 41 long years too many Londoners have simply had enough.
 
Ken Livingstone, Green Party candidate Jenny Jones and Boris Johnson listen to the results of the London mayoral election. Photograph: Getty Images.

Adam Bienkov is a blogger and journalist covering London politics and the Mayoralty. He blogs mostly at AdamBienkov.com

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ann Summers can’t claim to empower women when it is teaming up with Pornhub

This is not about mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

I can’t understand why erotic retailers like Ann Summers have persisted into the twenty-first century. The store claims to be “sexy, daring, provocative and naughty”, and somewhat predictably positions itself as empowering for women. As a feminist of the unfashionable type, I can’t help but be suspicious of any form of sexual liberation that can be bought or sold.

And yet, I’d never really thought of Ann Summers as being particularly threatening to the rights of women, more just a faintly depressing reflection of heteronormativity. This changed when I saw they’d teamed-up with Pornhub. The website is reputedly the largest purveyor of online pornography in the world. Pornhub guidelines state that content flagged as  “illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive” will be removed. Nonetheless, the site still contains simulated incest and rape with some of the more easily published film titles including “Exploited Teen Asia” (236 million views) and “How to sexually harass your secretary properly” (10.5 million views.)  With campaigns such as #metoo and #timesup are sweeping social media, it seems bizarre that a high street brand would not consider Pornhub merchandise as toxic.

Society is still bound by taboos: our hyper-sexual society glossy magazines like Teen Vogue offer girls tips on receiving anal sex, while advice on pleasuring women is notably rare. As an unabashed wanker, I find it baffling that in the year that largely female audiences queued to watch Fifty Shades Darker, a survey revealed that 20 per cent of U.S. women have never masturbated. It is an odd truth that in our apparently open society, any criticism of pornography or sexual practices is shut down as illiberal. 

Guardian-reading men who wring their hands about Fair Trade coffee will passionately defend the right to view women being abused on film. Conservative men who make claims about morals and marriage are aroused by images that in any other setting would be considered abuse. Pornography is not only misogynistic, but the tropes and language are often also racist. In what other context would racist slurs and scenarios be acceptable?

I have no doubt that some reading this will be burning to point out that feminist pornography exists. In name of course it does, but then again, Theresa May calls herself a feminist when it suits. Whether you believe feminist pornography is either possible or desirable, it is worth remembering that what is marketed as such comprises a tiny portion of the market. This won’t make me popular, but it is worth remembering feminism is not about celebrating every choice a woman makes – it is about analysing the social context in which choices are made. Furthermore, that some women also watch porn is evidence of how patriarchy shapes our desire, not that pornography is woman-friendly.  

Ann Summers parts the net curtains of nation’s suburban bedrooms and offers a glimpse into our peccadillos and preferences. That a mainstream high street retailer blithely offers guidance on hair-pulling, whipping and clamps, as well as a full range of Pornhub branded products is disturbing. This is not about women’s empowerment or mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

We are living in a world saturated with images of women and girls suffering; to pretend that there is no connection between pornography and the four-in-ten teenage girls who say they have been coerced into sex acts is naive in the extreme. For too long the state claimed that violence in the home was a domestic matter. Women and girls are now facing an epidemic of sexual violence behind bedroom doors and it is not a private matter. We need to ask ourselves which matters more: the sexual rights of men or the human rights of women?