Tale of Two Cities

This is just an idea that came to my head, with minimal butterflies and impact on the wider world, after some discussion about a certain former Mayor of London. Mostly, this is just a way of exploring an alternate 2012 London Mayoral Election, and seeing the consequences of that decision. Plausibility may be weaker than I imagine, but this is more an exercise than anything, and hopefully you'll all understand. Enjoy.

---

LabourList - Labour's Misfortune, London's Tragedy

By Mark Ferguson

How has it come to this? Once a proud defender of the principles of our party, and I mean our as in his role in it so long ago, now happy to align with the dark undersides of those who claim to be on the Left. His support can be found in RESPECT and the Tower Hamlets Party, who are the bizarre nightmares of the Daily Mail come to life, and he was done nothing to end the horrendous barrage aimed at Oona King during the campaign, even partaking in it.

In turn, many among the top ranks of London Labour, and the wider party, have found a knack for helping Boris drive the knife into Ken's campaign. He had made the mistake of backing Lutfur Rahman's campaign against Labour, which is rightfully against the very constitution of the party, and might have been able to learn his lesson and focus on supporting the party he had been a member of. Only he was never given the chance to apologise, although he still shows no sign of doing so.

Ed and the others were hoping that a public rebuke would be enough. That it would show that Ken was not above the rules. That was when David Miliband, in what close allies admit was more a salvo at his brother out of bitterness, demanded that Ken be expelled and that an emergency election be held to find his replacement. From there, the Tory press gained a target and went at it, and even some on the Labour side leapt on the bandwagon, anger at past sins.

I will admit, at the time, I was a firm opponent of this action. Ed was signifying a change from the failures of New Labour, and that he wouldn't kowtow to the Tory-led government's plans of hacking and slashing everything in sight, and Ken was at the forefront of praising this shift. To expel him, at the demands of Blairites, LibDems, and the actual Tories, smelt a bit too much like a reverse of this course and a greater focus toward same old, same old.

Ken could have done without threatening an Independent run, the threat obvious enough that any backtracking from Ed would be seen as weakness and give new meat for the Tories, and an apology would have gone a long way in fixing things. Instead, Ed and the NEC made the difficult choice and suspended Ken for two years, and established an emergency election process to decide a new candidate.

Yet we still could have avoided all of this. The backlash had come, many loyal parts of Labour, both London and national, declared their support for Ken and that there needed to be another vote. This one to be public rather than secret. Had Ken again apologised, offered his support for the process, and merely asked for a lift in the suspension, he might have had a chance. Ed would have had the chance to let him back in, and avoid the deadly split that would give Boris the big advantage.

What happened was self-destruction. Ken declared the party in the thrall of Blairites, with Cultural Revolution-language, that Ed was being used as a pawn, and that he was going to have another go at standing as an Independent candidate for Mayor of London. I assume he hoped that it would be a repeat of last time, a defeated party establishment going over the heads of members inviting him back after gaining a strong record and support for another run.

His campaign was skilled as well. Independent enough from Labour that he'd be a strong voice, but loyal to the cause and leader so that it would be Labour values that he'd fight for and that it wouldn't be disloyal to campaign for him and give him either first or second preference votes. Against Oona King, who we at LabourList do accept had played a stale, weak, and machine-like campaign that may have benefited from a candidate who wasn't thinking of 2016, it looked effective.

Owen Jones wrote of the need to 'resist another purge of socialists', Unite hinted at withholding funding for King and even granting some to Ken (as a protest that could not be stopped), and there was a firm base in London Labour that planned on standing by his side and moving to unseat Boris on his own. Ed had gained his boost in personal polling, at least in the strength department, and an agreement on joint-endorsement might have worked on.

Then, as always, events intervened. The 2011 Riots were a difficult time, Cameron's failings covered up by rhetoric of stripping benefits and water-cannons that the public, and this must be admitted, almost found too soft for them. Ken's speech on these being the disaffected and the lost, and taking them up as the people he'd stand by, was not helpful for himself. There are signs that poverty and dissatisfaction with the police fuelled the anger, yet people weren't willing to accept such words when many saw images of shops being looted and burnt.

Not only that, but he had to stick with his base. Galloway and Rahman flocked to his banner, as did the RMT under Bob Crow, and the Ken4London campaign quickly mutated into something dirty, a campaign designed to demolish those who committed the sin of doing Ken and his followers wrong over the years. The call for citizen's arrest on Blair, the refusal to condemn homophobic and anti-Semite language, and an almost mocking expression at the personal attacks on Oona.

The culmination came at a meeting, when one person asked about Israel and whether Ed could be trusted considering his 'background', a troubling remark, where Ken replied with saying that he was no longer Jewish and calling him 'a good 'un'. Even if he meant to say that he was free from personal ties to Israel, it was obvious what he intended for the questioner to hear.

As the news leaked, it was enough to turn the Labour campaign from languishing at the mid-teens to finally catching up with Ken at the 20s. Ed made it clear that he was proud of his heritage, before dealing with Tory semantics about records, and the stance towards Ken's rogue campaign hardened. There was to be no deal, no co-operation, and no mercy for those in Labour who flirted with an affair with Ken's campaign.

The point of no return was reached. The issue of tax-dodging by Ken was attacked with near-equal vehemence by Labour as the Boris campaign latched onto it, as was the use of actors in an attempt to match the West Wing for rhetoric and emotional appeal. Not to mention the disgusting 'Uncle Tom' controversy where Ken snapped at a gay reporter who was asking about him about the rising support for Boris in LGBT+ communities, refusing to apologise even now. The lowest point was the unwelcomed endorsement by the BNP candidate for Ken, which Oona and Labour leapt at, ignoring how Jenny Jones did the same.

Soon, not looking like the Left was out of control outpaced beating the Tories. King's campaign was as mechanic as ever, giving the skilled Siobhan Benita the chance to make her campaign as the positive choice for London gain enough traction that she defeated Mike Tuffrey of the LibDems on votes. In the end, either side could have advocated granting the other their second-preference votes, especially when it looked like one of them would narrowly beat the other, but allow Boris in on a higher vote share than before.

It never came. Feelings were too high, and no one intended for this to end without a victory. Oona's campaign thought that Ken would do it, an unhelpful leak describing it as 'crawling back for forgiveness' at the face of limited support, and Ken4London was fuelled by a sense of righteousness that matched the Occupy campaigns, especially the one in London. Neither side would budge, as the polls moved back and forth over which would outpace the other on first preferences.

The death-knell came from the Boris campaign. An anti-politics protester moved into a rally, describing the coalition as a betrayal and how there was no difference, any other politician's words would be met with denial and anger. Not Boris. To Nick Clegg's anger, Boris described how he, friends, and even Cameron had to resist the urge to 'box their [LibDem Cabinet members] ears when they'd compared us to Goebbels on AV' and that Clegg in particular suffered from 'his eyes swivelling in a certain direction' when Europe came to the agenda.

It got laughs, praise, and even the protester to call him 'a legend', a success few others can say they could achieve now. Clegg's open anger only pushed people further to Boris, who was brutal with Ken and Oona but portrayed as all smiles by the media, and the bloody campaign between Labour and Ken pushed people to giving their second preferences to Boris. By election day, both Oona and Ken were as stubborn as mules, the former remaining silent on endorsements and the latter pointing to the Greens.

Ken's tragedy was that he lost something by 2012, and that was the affection of London, and he has apparently still not forgiven the man who took it for his tactics, let alone his politics. His gaffes were no longer a man speaking his mind, but a man who seemed to have little control and a few worrying implications to his words, while Boris' were the stuff of comedy shows. It'd be hilarious, were he not the Mayor of London.

He lost by half a percent, 21% to Oona's 21.5% and Boris' 42%. By second-preferences, Boris achieved a majority of 53.5%, and Cameron and Osborne popped open the champagne. Boris was safely kept in London, questions on the Tories being able to win in London had been answered long ago, and the whole saga had been a weight that Labour would have to carry for a few more months.

Ken did not meet defeat with dignity. Sharp retorts on betrayal, a hostile media, and Oona's sin of not letting him defeat her again undermined what could have been a dignified farewell to frontline politics, and a hand reaching out for reconciliation with the party that got him where he is today. His endorsement of Miliband, and support for Labour's national efforts, showed signs of this until the bitterness took charge and poison spewed from his words.

So here we are. Few know if Ken will be allowed back into the party, let alone be its candidate for 2016, and his image, reputation, and legacy has been tarred by his recent actions. Even now, many within the party regret the circumstances, and look for where the blame may lie. Some blame Oona for her campaign's focus on Ken over Boris, some blame Ed for letting himself be out in the situation he did, and others blame the Tory Press, and those in Labour who called for his removal from the party, painting caving in as strength.

I disagree. Oona gave a few punches, and some were below the belt, but no one looking at how Ken4London used RESPECT and other stooges to launch personal intimidation campaigns could say it was not giving out a tenth of what was being taken. Ed was following the rules set down by the party, and would and should do the same if there were members who were calling for and helping campaigns of candidates opposing Labour ones. His instincts have always been party above individual, and he was right to pursue them.

The fault is not entirely his, but there is some for Ken. At any moment, he could have swallowed his pride and made amends, whether to save his candidature or to save his party membership. Ken made the choice to campaign for the corrupt Lutfur, he made the choice to refuse to back down, and he chose to run an independent campaign even back in 2009 if he lost. To say he was an unknowing victim is naivety at best, when the facts are assembled.

For the debate on letting him back in, I will say now that we should welcome him back, but he has to make the first step. Labour won't come to him, he needs to come to us. He needs to be the one to apologise for slandering and attacking members of our party, to promise to stand by our people and follow our rules, and that he won't hold our chances hostage again if he is not our candidate for 2016. Already, we have a fine list of candidates readying themselves for the thought of running, with or without him.

Ken can be part of Labour again, his support for Ed even now shows it, but he has to be the one to make amends. That's how healing starts.

---

3rd May 2012

Originally Posted by Meadow

Well, I just voted. I gave Oona King, however awful her campaign has been so far, my first preference, but I had to go with Ken for the round that I think matters most.

I know that his campaign has been very awful, personal, and disgusting in some quarters, but I've had to make the choice of who I think would be the better Mayor for London. Even if, by fate, Boris somehow came third and it was down to Oona against Ken, I'd likely make the same choice as I did now. Ken's record is a damn fine one, and his political record is the one I'm trialling compared to his personal one. I remember having a bit of a cry when he lost to Boris in 2008, and I would much prefer it if politics won over presentation, however unlikely it is.

Hopefully, whatever happens, there can be a reconciliation

Originally Posted by Lord Roem

I tried to see myself voting Ken, and couldn't. It's the opposite to you, Tom. I couldn't look past the personal record as of late, no matter how much certain parts of the Guardian yearn me to, and his betrayal of Labour was enough to disqualify my vote.

Yes, Oona's campaign has been rather awful and New Labour-esque. Ironically, had Ken avoided cavorting with the wrong sort and focused on a more positive campaign, he might have been in a better polling position without the constant abuse to make Oona's look much better. That said, she's Labour, Paddick lost the LibDem nomination, and Jones' endorsement of Ken has repelled me slightly.

I gave Siobhan my first preference, in the hopes that the boost may allow her to make a move towards the 2016 nominations. Oona will hopefully beat out Ken, which may help reduce his ego for his own sake, and the margin of victory will be far closer than the high-50s that Boris was once being predicted.

Originally Posted by Thande

I'd like to think that I'd be a Siobhan man, but I can't escape the feeling that I'd panic and give Ken my first preference and give the second to Boris to counter the forces working with Ken right now.
 
Very nice, BA. I liked the three cameos at the end, I think you got us right - you recalled my tears in 08, how charming. Thinking about it though, I think even in this scenario I'd vote Ken first: to guarantee avoiding the (ITTL accurate) risk of Ken not actually making it to the final two. Also, while I may be wrong, IIRC Jack saw/sees Siobhan as a bit of an empty suit.

The use of LabourList as a TL format is also innovative, and you capture Ferguson's loquaciousness somewhat well. The devil Ken turns into is broadly believable (see below for quibbles) and overall I'd say you capture the mood of 2012 quite well, particularly the settling dust after the 2011 riots. Hugging the hoodies who had Literally Burned Down The Fucking Shops was not a good look, whether for the Guardian or TTL's Ken.

Constructively, I'd say you've used 'swivel-eyed' as a way of describing left wingers again, which I've only ever heard you do. Maybe Boris does this in real life, but it didn't ring true here. Tiny nitpick that shows how believable the voices were.

More seriously, was the 'Ed isn't Jewish anymore' line based on something in reality? I know we're in A1900, but as I've said in Chat recently, I've never heard him make remarks that are on that level of clean-cut antisemitism, so if it's not based on a real event I would have to say it's a bit far.
 
Very nice, BA. I liked the three cameos at the end, I think you got us right - you recalled my tears in 08, how charming. Thinking about it though, I think even in this scenario I'd vote Ken first: to guarantee avoiding the (ITTL accurate) risk of Ken not actually making it to the final two. Also, while I may be wrong, IIRC Jack saw/sees Siobhan as a bit of an empty suit.

The use of LabourList as a TL format is also innovative, and you capture Ferguson's loquaciousness somewhat well. The devil Ken turns into is broadly believable (see below for quibbles) and overall I'd say you capture the mood of 2012 quite well, particularly the settling dust after the 2011 riots. Hugging the hoodies who had Literally Burned Down The Fucking Shops was not a good look, whether for the Guardian or TTL's Ken.

Constructively, I'd say you've used 'swivel-eyed' as a way of describing left wingers again, which I've only ever heard you do. Maybe Boris does this in real life, but it didn't ring true here. Tiny nitpick that shows how believable the voices were.

More seriously, was the 'Ed isn't Jewish anymore' line based on something in reality? I know we're in A1900, but as I've said in Chat recently, I've never heard him make remarks that are on that level of clean-cut antisemitism, so if it's not based on a real event I would have to say it's a bit far.

I'm sorry, I had to use the tears line, plus there were fewer people voting so I had to make do with what I had. On the voting, I imagined that a lot of people thought that he'd get into the second round as polling tended to go up and down for him, along with a lot of people thinking that he'd get into the second round anyway because 'it's Ken, of course he will', compared to Oona King's mediocre at best campaign.

For Siobhan, it's more that she's offering left wing policies that aren't tainted by an inability to communicate with people (Oona King), or with personal issues like Livingstone, so she sounded a lot better than she actually was. A form of Cleggmania, but much milder and more 'well, let's just make sure she'll beat the LibDems, then go for Labour/Ken/Boris' than anything else, plus a greater mood of scepticism at those who ducked the emergency election out of fear makes her be seen as the courageous one, which would likely die out in a few months as it did IOTL.

Thanks. Mark Ferguson is actually one of my favourites of the Labour commentariat, especially out of the Ed-Defenders, mostly because he's willing to come out and admit when he was wrong about something, will speak-up when bollocks is in the air, and manages to sound as if his views come from a positive place rather than a cultural hatred of Toryism. I don't see him regurgitating Bevan's speech on Tories as if it was some great achievement, as others may do. I was hoping to do him justice, showing that he'd have voted for Ken, but that he wasn't going to let him be a victim, along with some scolding of larger figures who chose to fight another day.

It was either him or Dan Hodges, who'd be a mixture of smug for the Left's defeat, genuinely happy that his sort of politics lost, and grumpy that Miliband isn't creating New Labour 2: Tonylectric Blairaloo, and that it won't signal a removal of leader or a change of policies. In the end, I wanted to more show how sad it is for a lot of people that this whole thing happened, how damaging it can be to a lot of people, and that this isn't some kind of great victory for anyone but Boris and the Tories.

I was more going for Boris playing to the crowd that was cheering him on, which tended to be those written off as the swivelled-eyed, and I will admit that I could have went with something a bit more Boris-y, yet I can see him rustling Clegg with a reverse-remark, considering that at least Clegg hates Boris on an equal level to Ken. Maybe I could have gone for 'he tends to have a single tear run down his face, when Ode To Joy plays on Classic FM' instead, which was a close contender for the remarks, but the swivelled-eyed one won the coin-toss.

On the whole 'is Ken an anti-Semite' thing, when it came to writing the bit, I was actually imagining something below the whole Evening Standard/Nazi Guard thing on the spectrum of Things You Shouldn't Say. It's more a second-hand thing that gets leaked to Guido, is turned from 'well, first off he's not a religious Jew so you don't need to worry about his religious beliefs or any idea of cultural links with Israel getting in the way. Besides, he's a good 'un, he won't follow the US lead', into 'he's not a Jew, he's a good 'un who'll make sure the job's done. Heil Islamofascist masters in Brussels', which is made worse by an initial reluctance to apologise for the statement on grounds of misinterpretation, and a general refusal to condemn others making statements on Israel that could be generously said to be crossing the line of criticism to racism.

All in all, I am thinking of doing a second part from a ConHome perspective, although I am worried that it'll be an extended version of 'WaHey! Wut a Leg! Red Ken lost, and so did Miliband. See, that's how you do it, Dave' wouldn't be as good. Maybe from the perspective of Tim Montgomerie, Janan Ganesh, or one of the Tory columnists in the papers would be better.
 

Heavy

Banned
Maybe from the perspective of Tim Montgomerie, Janan Ganesh, or one of the Tory columnists in the papers would be better.

Melanie Phillips.

getin.001.gif




(An interesting story to read, I should have said in the first place; I enjoy reading your timelines even if I don't often comment.)
 
Top