
How Ken Livingstone defeated Tony Blair to become London Mayor
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
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times
14 minutes ago
- Times
Public will pay price for police funding squeeze, say chiefs
Officer numbers will have to be cut as the public 'pay the price' for the lack of funding for policing in the spending review, police chiefs said. Sir Keir Starmer's pledge to restore neighbourhood policing is 'some way off' they said, after Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, announced that police funding would increase by £2.1 billion between 2026 and 2029 — an average real-terms increase of 1.7 per cent. The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) said this would leave a shortfall of £1.2 billion and lead to forces 'cutting headcount to balance the books'. The Police Federation said the public would 'pay the price', while the Police Superintendents' Association (PSA) accused the government of a 'shameful abandonment of the police service'. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, is understood to be planning to review police funding in the autumn, when she will pressure the chancellor for extra money to meet Labour's pledge to recruit 13,000 police officers. Police chiefs said that without extra funding, the money would have to be found through rises in council tax or cuts to other policing services. Gavin Stephens, the NPCC chairman, said the funding rise would 'cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases' and that progress on the prime minister's key missions, such as halving violence against women and cutting knife crime, would be slower. Sir Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, said police numbers would fall, adding: 'I remain concerned that this spending review could result in insufficient funding for the Met and fewer police officers.' Starmer's promise to recruit 13,000 neighbourhood police officers was one of Labour's flagship policies in last year's general election. Paul Sanford, chairman of the NPCC's finance co-ordination committee, said: 'While we are looking at a 1.7 per cent increase, once pay is accounted for, once our non-pay pressures are accounted for, we think it will be incredibly difficult for the commitment to deliver the additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers within this funding envelope. 'We've made some progress. We have a good 3,000 already recruited but based on this settlement, that does look a real challenge for us … Certainly we are going to be some way off unless some significant levers are going to be pulled. Any further progress towards the 13,000 without new money would only come from making savings in our budgets.' Sanford said it was impossible to predict what the neighbourhood policing shortfall would be. Labour's initial announcement said the 13,000 officers would comprise 4,000 police community service officers, 3,000 special constables, 3,000 existing officers and 3,000 new police constables. Stephens added that 'the size and shape of the police workforce will inevitably have to change'. He said: 'The amount falls far short of what is required to fund the government's ambitions and maintain our existing workforce. This is against a backdrop of increasing crime rates, with new and escalating threats from organised crime and hostile states, and more offenders being managed in the community as a result of an overstretched criminal justice system.' Sanford said the overhaul of sentencing laws, which will scrap short prison sentences and release some prisoners after they have served just a third of their sentence, would pile further pressure on police budgets. Additional investment in the Probation Service to monitor offenders would take time to phase in, he said, leaving police to deal with the consequences of more criminals on the streets. 'There isn't any additional money to deal with that. This will increase the workload of police officers.' Tiff Lynch, acting national chairwoman of the Police Federation, accused the chancellor of failing to listen to police officers or the home secretary. She said: 'This spending review should have been a turning point after 15 years of austerity that has left policing, and police officers, broken. Instead, the cuts will continue — and it's the public who will pay the price. 'As rank-and-file officers kit up for night duty this evening, they'll do so knowing exactly where they stand in the government's priorities. It is beyond insulting for cabinet ministers to call on police to 'do their bit' when officers are overworked, underpaid and under threat like never before. 'They are facing blades and bricks, managing mental health crises, while battling to protect their own, and carrying the weight of trauma and financial stress home with them every day.' Nick Smart, president of the PSA, said it was a 'shameful abandonment of the police service' and warned that the government was failing in its first duty of keeping public safe. He said: 'Today's funding announcement is a huge blow to the police service, which has once again been placed at the bottom of the government's list of priorities. It is the first duty of government to keep its citizens safe, yet today we see no evidence of a commitment to doing this. 'Many of the government's election pledges centred around a commitment to 'safer streets', promising the public that it would meet ambitious targets such as halving knife crime. Yet the lack of investment announced today means we will continue to struggle to deliver the basics, to maintain officer numbers, cover inflationary costs, cover pay awards and function as we are, let alone move forward on new public safety and transformation initiatives.'


Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The treaty Gibraltar wants, for the future we all need
For over five years, Gibraltar has been at the centre of one of the most complex, technical, and geopolitically sensitive negotiations undertaken by the United Kingdom and the European Union since Brexit. The process has consumed me. It has occupied close to half of my time in elected office, taken over almost every waking hour of the last five years, and, in truth, deprived the people of Gibraltar of their Chief Minister in the way they are used to having him, that is, from fixing housing and parking complaints to defending their sovereignty in the international arena. For much longer than I would have wanted, I have been behind closed doors, in physical or virtual boardrooms, working through the details of a document that will shape the next generation of our people. It has been a relentless, exhausting endeavour. Throughout this time, the UK and Gibraltar teams have worked together seamlessly, 'hand in glove', without a flash of daylight between us. We have worked in close partnership with both Conservative and Labour prime ministers and foreign secretaries; from Dominic Raab, Liz Truss and James Cleverly to David Cameron and now David Lammy. What we have negotiated is not the product of fragmented agendas, but the position of a unified British family determined to find a solution worthy of our people. Without a treaty, Gibraltar could be staring down the barrel of a hard border, marked by endless queues, disrupted supply chains, and a deeply uncertain future for many of our businesses. Our hospitals and elderly care homes would face chronic understaffing, and the surrounding region would suffer the almost certain loss of employment for many of the 15,000 cross-border workers who depend on Gibraltar's economy to support their families. The services we deliver to our people would all come under strain. Our public finances would be pushed to the brink. The self-governing Gibraltar we have built would be diminished, replaced by something poorer, more isolated, more inward-looking, and ultimately less able to thrive as a proud, British European Territory. Instead, we now stand at the threshold of something remarkable, and not just for Gibraltar, but also for the United Kingdom, for Spain, and for Europe and our people. Something bold. Something forward looking and hopeful. Something that finally breaks free of the negative inertia that has defined too much of our recent past. Unlocking potential across borders This is politics at its most elevated. The service-led principle of working for our people's benefit and not the performative personal antagonism that too often infects public life. Real, hard graft that overcomes challenges to deliver progress. This is the kind of result our people demand when they voice distrust and decry the political 'establishment'. Our Spanish and EU counterparts, for their part, have brought to the table a seriousness of purpose that also reflects the gravity of the moment. They, too, have recognised that this treaty is not merely about fluidity of movement, but about unlocking human and economic potential across borders. Make no mistake: the treaty that is now within reach is not one that the Gibraltarians have been forced to accept. Our people voted for us to have a mandate to turn our New Year's Eve agreement of 2020 into a UK/EU agreement/treaty. So we say 'yes' to this agreement, but not because we don't know how to say 'no' when we have to. We did so, emphatically, in 2002, when we triggered a referendum to reject Jack Straw's proposal of joint sovereignty with Spain, and I am just as adamant today that this treaty will not in any way compromise British sovereignty over Gibraltar. That will be set out, black upon white, in the treaty when it is published. It is a legal undertaking given by both sides in clear and unequivocal terms. So to be clear: in this treaty we have not ceded any control of Gibraltar to any authority. Just like today, only Gibraltar will decide who enters Gibraltar – exactly as we agreed in 2020 when Dominic Raab was foreign secretary and Boris Johnson was prime minister. This treaty unleashes the potential to usher in a new era. One in which we move beyond the tired narratives of the past on constant sovereignty disputes, towards a future defined by hope, cooperation and shared prosperity. It will pave the way for better jobs, more investment and lasting stability for Gibraltar and the wider region. It can deliver more harmonious human relations and a better quality of life for all our people. When you read it, I ask that you to look up from the pages of this treaty and see that better reality as it peers back at us from the future. This will be the treaty Gibraltar wants. It will be a treaty the UK and the EU can be proud of. And it will be a treaty that will propel us all to the better future politicians are elected to deliver. When the time comes, back Gibraltar and its proudly British people by backing the Gibraltar treaty.

Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Fabian Picardo
We have reached this position as a unified British family determined to find a solution worthy of our people