Which way will LibDems jump?

The Supplementary Vote system used to elect the Mayor of London will give Liberal Democrats in the capital a straight choice: Should they put the politics of anti-incumbency - the desire to kick out randomly at Labour in power, even if this means giving a helping hand to a barely reconstructed reactionary clown like Boris Alexandre de Pfeffel Johnson - ahead of the progressive governance of our city?  Many Liberal Democrats nationwide would surely baulk at taking such a stand.  And yet with Liberals and Conservatives already working together in boroughs like Brent and Camden to forge an anti-Labour bloc, it is far from clear that the majority of Londoners will resist the temptation to take a further swipe at their local opponents.  A recent Guardian/ICM poll put Ken and his Tory challenger almost neck-and-neck, but suggested that a lead that has opened up by Johnson for the second preferences of Lib Dems, could give the latter the key to City Hall. 

This possibility raises an awful lot of questions.  What would this say about the direction Nick Clegg is taking his party?   

And what would it all mean for the possible introduction of preferential voting for elections to the House of Commons?  Would it help Labour to convince the electorate that it was not introducing reform of the voting system for its own party-political advantage?  Or is the party leadership looking for signs that AV would help to cement a broader "progressive coalition" with the Lib Dems to keep the Conservatives out of power?

How representative are the views of London's Lib Dems, anyway?  In areas with Tory incumbents, might there be more of a move to swing behind Labour instead?  There will be a lot to factor into our post-election considerations.

Comments

[Robert]

Well being progress a Blairite group it does not surprise me you hit out at other parties to help Ken, when our own Leader the hopeless Brown tells the poor hell people you know taxing the poor is better then taxing the rich, you want to know who is killing Ken, I can tell you, it's New Bloody Labour.

[Mark]

You say beating Boris Johnson is vital - but leave without comment Ken Livingstone's decision to urge a second preference vote for the Green.

If beating Boris Johnson is really that important, he should be urging a second preference vote for Brian Paddick (as that's much more likely to come into play than a second preference vote for the Greens).

In other words: you want to lecture others on what they should do without putting your own house in order.

Not really the most persuasive of cases, really, is it?

[Michael Calderbank]

Firstly, Ken has already said (on Newsnight) that if he was in the situation where his only choice was Brian Paddick or Boris Johnson, he would back Paddick without a second thought.

But since there is not an earthly that Ken will be eliminated before the second round, his advice on second preferences will not affect the Mayoral outcome in any way. Whereas Paddick's refusal to advocate a second preference vote for Ken could end up paving the way for the election of Johnson.

[Diversity]

Your problem is that our Ken may not beat Boris if they are the last two. That would put paid to any prospect of good governance for London.

I agree. I also agree that the election is likely to be decided on second preferences. But have you noticed that if the last two are Boris and Paddick, Paddick wins? It is a very good reason for giving your first preference to Paddick. If the last two are Ken and Boris, our second preferences for Ken will count as much as first preferences would have done. And there will be a better chance of seeing off Boris.

[MBoy]

No Michael, Ken didnt say that at all. He said that if he hadnt already given his 2nd preference to the Green Party (i.e. thrown it away) then he would vote for Paddick. In other words, he would give Paddick his imaginary 3rd vote. Nice try.

But what a sanctimonious article in general. It's the arrogance of articles like this that exhibit exactly why the New Labour brand has fallen from grace so spectacularly. Now they expect the "progressive consensus" to ride back in and save them from their own failures (like a corrupt Livingstone). No thanks.

[Michael Calderbank]

This is a complete red herring. As much as you might wish that Paddick stands an earthly of getting into the final round, all the available polling returns say he can't and won't.

So by sitting on your hands Liberals would help Boris into office. If that's your choice, your entitled to make it. But voters across the country should take note.

[Dave M]

Why should any candidate or political party advocate who electors put for their second choice? Surely they are there to campaign for themselves to win and give electors a reason to vote for them (irrespective of their chances according to the pundits). That is not 'sitting on your hands'.