logo
How Ken Livingstone defeated Tony Blair to become London Mayor

How Ken Livingstone defeated Tony Blair to become London Mayor

BBC News07-05-2025

Ken v Tony: How London elected its first mayor
10 minutes ago
Share
Save
Tony Grew
BBC News
Share
Save
Getty Images
Rivals for power: Ken Livingstone and Tony Blair come face to face
Regional mayors are now commonplace in England: Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley and Tracy Brabin in West Yorkshire are all well-known spokespeople for their areas.
But the most prominent directly-elected mayor in Britain was also the first: London.
As is fitting for a city as exciting as London, the first election for that coveted position included allegations of betrayal, stitch ups and intrigue – and one candidate ended up in prison.
Twenty five years ago Tony Blair's government, elected in 1997 and known as New Labour, was very keen on a new form of devolution.
9:11
London's mayor at 25 - what's next?
They wanted mayors like those in America, big personalities elected with powers and budgets (but not too many powers, or too big a budget).
In the end, only one was created by Blair's government.
The 1998 Greater London Authority referendum, held in May that year, asked whether there was support for creating a Greater London Authority with a directly elected mayor and Assembly.
The voters were less keen than New Labour - just 34% turned out to vote, but the majority was clear nonetheless: 72% in favour.
The 'Yes' vote won in every London borough, with support lowest in Bromley with 57% and highest in Haringey with 84%.
PA Media
Just four mayoral candidates taking a ride on the new London Eye
Now London was to have a mayor, who would it be?
The obvious candidate was Ken Livingstone, the former left-wing firebrand (and publicity-friendly) leader of the Greater London Council (GLC), who went toe-to-toe with the Thatcher government - and lost.
The GLC was abolished in 1986, leaving London in the unenviable position of having 32 boroughs (and the City of London) but no overall strategic elected body for the largest city in Europe.
However, Livingstone's ability to alienate prime ministers wasn't confined to Conservatives.
Getty Images
Ken Livingstone during his time as leader of the GLC
Tony Blair was also not a Ken fan.
"Red" Ken, as he was known, was Old Labour, not New Labour.
The message from Downing St was clear: Stop Ken.
The party management tried to get the very popular Mo Mowlam to stand, then switched to Frank Dobson.
A bearded, avuncular figure who was serving as New Labour's first health secretary, he was 'persuaded' to stand against his old comrade Ken.
Dobson had initially, and somewhat bravely, declared his desire to remain at health, but then had to give up his cabinet seat to run for a job he didn't want.
The internal workings of Labour can be difficult for outsiders - and many insiders - to navigate.
In this case, an electoral college was mandated which led to the popular Livingstone not winning selection.
The vote was a third each for party members, trade unions and London MPs and other elected representatives.
In the final ballot Livingstone won 60% of party members and 72% of affiliated unions, but Dobson won 86% of MPs, MEPs and Greater London Assembly candidates.
Dobson therefore won a narrow overall victory, and the Blairites were accused of rigging the whole thing to keep Old Labour Ken from the nomination.
Livingstone for his part had promised not to run as an independent, then decided that that was what he was going to do after all.
PA Media
Tony Blair backed Frank Dobson as Labour's candidate for Mayor
The Tories also had a colourful time choosing their candidate.
In September 1999 the novelist Jeffrey Archer was selected by party members, beating Steve Norris.
But in a plot twist reminiscent of one of his books, Archer withdrew from the race a few months later after it was alleged he had committed perjury in a famous libel case.
Lord Archer had secured the Conservative nomination with backing from former prime ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major, who in 1992 had made him a peer.
Five years earlier, in 1987, Archer had won a libel case against The Daily Star which published a story that he had paid off a sex worker called Monica Coghlan.
After his selection as a mayoral candidate, a former friend of Archer's told the News of the World that he had lied in the libel trial and asked him to provide a false alibi.
Archer stood down from the race, and starred in a production of his courtroom play, The Accused, in London's West End while waiting for his trial to start.
In July 2001 he was found guilty and spent two years in jail, but retained his peerage and membership of the House of Lords as there was no mechanism to remove them at the time.
PA Media
Lord Archer was found guilty of perjury and spent two years in jail
Norris was selected as the Conservative Party candidate to replace Archer.
A very different type of Tory, Norris advocated for gay rights and had a relaxed approach to monogamy.
He was also a former transport minister who was obsessed with buses.
In that role, he had a hand in approving the Jubilee line extension from Green Park to Stratford, and the privatisation of London's bus services.
In the rough and tumble world of turn of the century politics, he was given the nickname "Shagger".
A brief snippet from a Guardian profile piece published during that first mayoral campaign gives a flavour of Norris' complex appeal.
"The day his original candidature was announced was marked by a letter to the Times from his father-in-law, a retired rear-admiral, expressing astonishment at Norris's public plans to marry the fourth of his famous five mistresses … since as far as the rear-admiral knew, Norris was still married to his daughter."
Norris was a self-made man, a millionaire car salesman who grew up in working class Liverpool, attending the same school as Paul McCartney.
Not many 2025 Tories can boast that sort of hinterland.
PA Media
Steve Norris was a socially liberal Conservative and bus obsessive
There may have been some intrigue in the Lib Dem selection process, but it is lost to history if there was.
Their candidate was the estimable Susan Kramer, who was subjected to condescension and mansplaining throughout the campaign - this was a time when female Labour MPs were referred to as "Blair's Babes" by tabloid and broadsheet newspapers alike.
Livingstone was to mount the first - and so far only - successful independent bid for Mayor of London.
Dobson ran a campaign that never really captured the imagination of London's voters, and his old comrade won the historic poll despite a late surge in support for the Tory candidate.
The May 2000 election was a disaster for New Labour: Dobson got just 13% of the vote and was eliminated in the first round along with Susan Kramer, who polled a respectable 11.9% for the Lib Dems.
Livingstone led by 39% to 27% of first preference votes and polled a total of 776,427 votes to 564,137 for Norris, after second preferences were calculated.
It was a bloody nose and a notable defeat for the previously unassailable Tony Blair.
The BBC News website has an archive of reports from this election, a time capsule of the way politics used to be.
It reported that Dobson's "humiliation in the mayoral poll was underlined as he came fourth in the mayoral contest in Barnet and Camden - the seat which includes his parliamentary constituency".
The BBC News website reported the Mayoral election in May 2000
The 2000 election reports reveal Livingstone said he would "fight for the interests of Londoners as mayor, demanding more money from the government and telling ministers they were wrong over plans to partially privatise the London Underground".
London Underground, now part of Transport for London, remains in public hands under the control of the Mayor of London.
It also reported that Blair "made it clear Mr Livingstone would not be allowed to return to Labour after standing against an official party candidate".
Blair was wrong about that: in 2004 Livingstone was the Labour candidate, and he won, again defeating Norris.
Livingstone was his party's standard bearer again in both 2008 and 2012, on both occasions losing to a young Conservative contender called Boris Johnson.
But that's another story.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fears of tent cities as rough sleeping is decriminalised in end to 200-year-old law
Fears of tent cities as rough sleeping is decriminalised in end to 200-year-old law

Daily Mail​

time41 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Fears of tent cities as rough sleeping is decriminalised in end to 200-year-old law

Tent cities could pop up across the UK as rough sleeping is decriminalised, critics of the policy say. Ministers have announced plans to repeal the Vagrancy Act by next spring, meaning it will no longer be an offence to sleep on pavements. But there are fears scrapping the 200-year-old law despite rising numbers of the homeless will mean more people camping on the streets. Announcing the changes, Angela Rayner said she was 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society'. The Housing Secretary pledged to increase funding for homelessness services with an extra £233million this financial year to provide alternatives to rough sleeping. She said: 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' Introduced in 1824 to tackle a homelessness crisis after the Industrial Revolution, the law was designed to punish 'idle and disorderly persons, and rogues and vagabonds'. Most parts of the act have been repealed but some remain in force in England and Wales to enable police to move on rough sleepers rather than prosecute them. Homeless charities called the move a 'landmark moment' they had long called for. However, there were concerns that the move could lead to more people sleeping on streets and the creation of 'tent cities'. The charity Shelter estimates there are 326,000 people, including 161,500 children, in England who are homeless, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year. This has caused camps to pop up in several cities, including on Park Lane in central London. Figures published in April showed the total number sleeping rough in the capital – those who spend at least one night on the streets – was 4,427 for the three months to March 2025, which was a near 8 per cent increase from 4,118 for the same quarter last year. The numbers classed as living on the streets had risen by 38 per cent year-on-year to 706 from 511. The Government said 'targeted measures will ensure police have the powers they need to keep communities safe – filling the gap left over by removing previous powers'. These will be new offences of facilitating begging for gain and trespassing with the intention of committing a crime and will be brought in through amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. Ministers said this will ensure organised begging – often by criminal gangs – remains an offence, meaning it is unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg. Ms Rayner's department said spending on homeless services would hit nearly £1billion this financial year. Kevin Hollinrake, Tory communities spokesman, said: 'Labour's approach will result in a pavement free-for-all in our towns and cities. They just don't understand or care how this affects law-abiding local residents and the impact it has on their pride of place.' Chris Philp, the Tory home affairs spokesman, told the Telegraph: 'This move risks turning British cities into a version of San Francisco, which has become overrun by encampments of homeless people.

Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review

Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.

Fears Trump could sink US-UK nuclear subs deal after President ordered review into pact intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression
Fears Trump could sink US-UK nuclear subs deal after President ordered review into pact intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Fears Trump could sink US-UK nuclear subs deal after President ordered review into pact intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression

Royal Navy chiefs voiced concerns last night after Donald Trump ordered a review of the nuclear submarine pact between the UK, the US and Australia. Aukus, as the joint project is known, is intended to secure the Pacific against Chinese aggression and involves multi-billion-pound commitments to build new nuclear-powered submarines. The Ministry of Defence announced its intention to build up to 12 submarines for Aukus and other operations as part of last week's Strategic Defence Review. But these plans have been thrown into doubt after the US defence department announced a review to ensure Aukus meets the President's 'America First' agenda. Relations between the US and Australia have soured over tariffs. America has also demanded Australia increase defence spending and wants to sell older submarines to Australia on favourable terms. Another cause for concern is the review is being led by Aukus sceptic Elbridge Colby, who is close to President Trump. Last night former head of the Royal Navy, Admiral Lord West said: 'Aukus is extremely important for the strategic situation in the Pacific and very important for Britain as a way of us moving into our next generation of submarines. 'The US had had concerns about selling its submarines to Australia, so it is not entirely unexpected that President Trump would want to look at this. Hopefully this can be resolved and we all move on together as part of the alliance.' The deal is regarded as a pillar of security co-operation. But concerns have been raised in the US over the rate of submarine production and Australia's reluctance to commit to a 'no holds barred' response to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. The US is committed to selling up to five boats to Australia, vessels which many in the US believe should be retained by the US Navy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store