Posted elsewhere, but here for completeness: The Tories succeed electorally because they are entirely without sentiment. Thatcher was a multiple election winner, deeply popular with both the party and the base, but was becoming more and more divisive and looked on course to lose in 1992. So the Tory brains trust invited her to consider her future with a revolver and a bottle of whiskey and, when she refused, staged a show trial and public execution. They got a two-for-one: a new, less divisive, leader and the opportunity to show that they were stepping away from her policies (they didn’t, of course, not really, but perception is all). Then when, in the aftermath of 1997, new Tory leaders lost elections, they were immediately defenestrated: never did the Tories try the foolish act of re-presenting a losing candidate to the electorate, saying “yes, I know you rejected him last time, but you were wrong, don’t you see?” Contrast with Labour. Candidacies aren’t decided based on the ability to win elections, but rather as the reward for long service, loyal lieutenantship and straight-forward sentiment. Michael Foot is the index case for this — no-one ever believed he would win a general election, probably including him, but he became leader as a reward for a long career in the party. Neil Kinnock in 1992 is another: he’d lost in 1987, so there was no possible chance that as a loser, he would win. Brown is yet another: Blair was becoming a liability, but rather than make a step to a new world, Labour rewarded Brown by launching him on a doomed premiership. But the Livingstone example is insane. He lost in 2008. He lost in the face of a campaign by an insurgent, inexperienced Tory whose public image was of an incompetent buffoon. Irrespective of whether you think someone else could have done better over the past four years (which obviously, they could), Johnson has not been a total disaster. Zoe Williams’ notorious piece in the G2 in 2008 now looks absurd, because although Johnson has been many things that are not good, he has been neither evil nor incompetent. So running Livingstone again (saying to the electorate “we think you didn’t mean it last time, so we’re asking again to see if we get a different answer”) was just sentimental madness. This time, Johnson was the incumbent, and had a track record that was not entirely bad: defeating that requires more than pointing to your past history and saying, in essence, “I deserve it for past glories”. Candidates have to be able to win. Candidates who have lost will continue to lose. There are no second acts in politics. Livingstone, remember, didn’t lose his role as leader of the GLC at an election, the role was abolished. There was no reason for anyone who didn’t vote for Livingstone in 2008 to vote for him in 2012, and they didn’t. In the face of massive hostility to the Tories, and Labour victories through the whole country, including the GLA, Labour threw away an important election just so they didn’t have to have an awkward “thanks, but here’s your gold watch” with a much-loved but now ineffective retainer. Loyalty to colleagues and members is touching, but the Labour Party has to be loyal first and foremost to its electorate and to the working class. On this occasion (as with Brown) the Labour Party self-indulgently ran the candidate that made their lives easier, rather than the candidate who could win an election and make things better for Londoners. Shame on them.