Oh I see, this is part of a broader strategy to keep Labour in power:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-asks-for-lib-dem-help-to-beat-johnson-805391.html

Hang on a minute. You welcome a second preference voting system as a good thing, as a sign of progress, but then say that you don’t want to see second preference votes leading to someone being elected “by the back door”. Isn’t there a bit of a tension between these two statements?

You urge second preference votes to be cast for Ken Livingstone. Presumably if this happened and resulted in him winnign teh contest, you would reject any suggestion that he won the position “by the back door”?

Ken Livingstone (Andrew Marr Show, 11/11/07):
“Well I’ve always been in favour of ID cards, not so much because I think they’ll stop terrorism because Al Qaeda will get perfect replicas, because vast millions of dollars have been poured into that organisation, but I think they’ll just be very good at helping deal with low level crime and allowing people to identify who they are.”

Ken Livingstone (Independent, 07/04/08):
“”I’d rather have the nanny state than the collapse of human civilisation in the middle of this century, because climate change carries on and violent weather makes life intolerable. And anyway, the English have always liked being disciplined by nannies.”

Liberal Democrats vote for Ken Livingstone out of ignorance.

Ken Livingstone (Andrew Marr Show, 11/11/07):
“Well I’ve always been in favour of ID CARDS, not so much because I think they’ll stop terrorism because Al Qaeda will get perfect replicas, because vast millions of dollars have been poured into that organisation, but I think they’ll just be very good at helping deal with low level crime and allowing people to identify who they are.”

Ken Livingstone (Independent, 07/04/08):
“I’d rather have the NANNY STATE than the collapse of human civilisation in the middle of this century, because climate change carries on and violent weather makes life intolerable. And anyway, the English have always liked being disciplined by nannies.”

Liberal Democrats vote for Ken Livingstone out of ignorance.

I also wonder, given that Livingstone has already promised his second preference vote to Sian Berry, what will he offer Paddick in return, should Paddick actually agree to this proposal?

what will he offer Paddick in return, should Paddick actually agree to this proposal?

Special Advisor for Liberal Democratic Enticement? Deputy Mayor? Promise to have a word with his new mate Gordon about a Peerage?

@Publicans Decoy

Paddick and Clegg have already turned down private offers of this nature from Livingstone’s people. That was why they went to the Greens (who were then given the “Portfolio for attacking the Lib Dems” which they duly did with distinctly non-sandally gusto). Labour are now supplementing these private attacks, it seems, with a public appeal. They really are convinced of their own Good Guys status beyond all sense.

My second vote is not going to be used.

My second vote is not going to be used.

c’mon now Alix, that defeats the whole point of the AV system. Don’t you think its more preferable to FPTP at least?

Yeah, Alix, surely there’s a guy from the legalise cannabis party or the loonies or something you can use your second vote for?

I looked for a candidate for the Standing At The Back Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party (”compulsory eating of asparagus at breakfast! free corsets for the under 5s”) but no joy. It’s Christians, UKIP, dodgily bankrolled former Respecters or the BNP. I s’pose I could another look at the independent guy

This is a bit disingenuous.

It is highly presumptive for people like Sunder Katwala or Peter Hain to try to direct the behaviour of others by suggesting LibDems and lefties have an equal and coaligned interest in keeping out Boris, especially when the consequence is implicitly one-sided.

I also think second-guessing the result of an election before it has occurred is an insult to the intellect of the electorate, exposing Labour’s anti-democratic tendency: it smacks of Mugabe-ism and could well be couterproductive.

If Brian Paddick and the LibDems can disavow such behaviour and make some headlines about coming through the middle of the pack then they will gain at least one upgrade from second to first preference, while Labour can now count one completely lost vote.

You would have learnt more if you had addressed this letter to the Assembly Lib Dems, led by Sally Hamwee and Dee Doocey, who have had direct experience of trying to hold Livingstone and his ‘deeply unlikeable’ political advisers to account for 8 years. They certainly would not support any advice to local Lib Dems to support him. Their antipathy towards him is very strong.

His cynical manipulation of the naive Green Party as his attack dog baiting Paddick has only made such co-operation even less likely. I expect that most will, like me, make no use of our 2nd vote; those that are used will be divided evenly and will not affect the result.

Interesting poll over on LDV at the moment asking who we’re going to give our second prefs to (it’s not limited to London members though so may not be representative). Boris and Ken are neck and neck on 61 and 60 respectively, and the other candidates are nowhere. But they are being run a pretty close third by Mr Nobody on 52.

PublicansDecoy – it’s a fair point which you make on the ‘back door’ comment. I suppose the claim is that a conscious effort to prefer either Livingstone or Johnson would be 2nd prefs by the front door. If the LibDem MPs (which given that they would suffer from a Cameroon boost) would prefer Boris not to make it but don’t act in either way, then that is the effect.

Thomas, I think you miss the point entirely in your remarks about ’second guessing the result’ . Your points would make more sense (minus the Zimbabwe analogy) if aimed at all of the leaflets put out by all parties (esp LibDems!) with famous mis-proportioned bar graphs saying ‘only we can win here’ and calling for tactical votes in Westminster constituencies and local elections. They simply don’t apply at all in a system where nobody’s second preference can count against their first preference, and count only if the first candidate is eliminated. That is the difference between preferential and tactical voting. The letter accepts that they will all want Paddick to win.

Frankly, the Mugabe-ism point is either a bit daft and suggests you are paying very little attention to Zimbabwe. If you mean it seriously, I find it needlessly offensive. (If Zanu-PF wants to send letters to supporters of the MDC and the third candidate, or to newspapers which have the freedom to report openly, setting out why Mugabe deserves another term, that would show a good awareness of democratic debate. I don’t think that is the plan).

Sunder,

Once upon a time, an appeal to the Liberal Democrats for their second preferences might have been more fruitful. However, for those of us who have had the dubious pleasure of competing against some astonishingly unprincipled Labour campaigning in recent years, such a concept becomes far less attractive.

Accusations of racism, attacks on our record on crime (pardon me, I thought that a Labour Mayor was responsible for this) and an unremitting attempt to scare people into voting Labour in 2006 have led me to believe that, whilst it might be possible to work with Labour in the future, it isn’t now.

The Labour fixation with strong leadership has led us to a position whereby Ken simply bribes the Greens to support his budget, leaving the majority unable to influence him. If you can explain how enabling a Mayor to govern when 16 out of 25 Assembly Members are against him represents pluralist democracy, then you are perhaps in the wrong job.

I won’t be giving my second preference to Boris either, as I have no confidence in his ability to lead this city. His stream of apologies for past misdeeds merely reminds me that his views are inconsistent with those appropriate to run the most diverse city on Earth.

This leaves me with precious little alternative but to withhold my second preference, given the paucity of other choices and the desire of the Greens to act as mini-me to Ken.

Finally, your suggestion that Liberal Democrats should join in a progressive coalition presumes that we consider the current Labour administration to be progressive in nature. Attacks on our civil liberties, an increasing tendancy to legislate regardless of impact, pandering to the Daily Mail’s agenda, none of these represent progressive politics. As for electoral reform, an elected second chamber and a written constitution, when your Party produce concrete proposals, let us know, and we’ll talk. Until then, we’ll remember how badly we’ve been let down thus far, and judge you by your deeds, not by your words…

Sunder,

thank you for your response. It is a shame, but also telling that you felt the need to respond at such courteous length to a nobody such as myself, however it does show the accusation hit a nerve.

It is quite worrying that someone in such an important position can so easily (or is that deliberately?) confuse the current Mayoral election, which is the subject of this conversation, initiated by your good self, with parliamentary or local council elections. This also suggests that you are attempting to deflect attention from a point of weakness in your argument.

I agree that drawing attention to a similarity between Labout and Mugabe tactics is to overegg the cake, but it is a lie on your behalf to suggest that you are more interested in keeping out the conservative candidate in some kind of progressive alliance, against to clinging on to power at all costs.

To prove this point we only need to look at the track record of the candidates, in particular your first choice, who was viciously opposed by Labour until he convincingly won as a populist independent.

While your letter assumes that the LibDems want their candidate to win, it also infers you have taken sides.

So were your claim to be primarily policy-oriented possibly true you would have remained staunchly outside the arena of party politics (for which you are clearly unsuited).

Your letter is a demonstration of both your desperation for, and inability to resist the lure, of the bright lights – it is a power-grubbing scam.

You also needlessly throw around shameful diktats about ‘awareness of the democratic debate’, as if you you have some god-given right to decide on behalf of any portion of public what this means.

The social situation in London is simply not comparable to that in Zimbabwe, so it takes a blinded ideologue like you to make the assumption that the methods of reaching the electorate in both places could possibly be the compared on a like-for-like basis. Britain is effectively mono-lingual, while literacy levels, for example, are just not equivalent.

I also challenge you to say how British institutions, such as the press, police and electoral agencies, are free enough to perform their role to the greatest public benefit – is there not great scope for improvement? Have we not seen them take backward steps under Labour?

As I have previously declared myself undecided and open to all candidates – without prejudice – I had hoped that the course of the election would identify a deserving winner. While this hope now seems to be in vain and I must accept a more realistic appraisal of the candidates, your personal intervention (a subject of much obvious consideration – definitely not a last-gasp throw of the dice!) has solidified my previous scepticism of current left-wing debate into downright fear of Labour and fear for the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups under Labour regimes.

May I ask why you attempt to publicly rally support to the party that has just abolished the 10pence tax band – which will hit low-paid workers hardest? Is your prefered candidate making a stand against his colleagues in government?

Unfortunately your absenteeism from these pages has created in you a false impression of the collective debate ongoing within them – a result of either your indoctrination, or an indication of how out of touch you are.

Neither provides a recommendation.

For me, the effect of your letter is the opposite of it’s content.