I still think the interesting thing here is, what is it that appeals to people when they see Ken Livingstone, rather than the ins and outs of what happened last time. I mean, superficially at least he doesn't have the qualities that are supposed to turn people on to public figures and does have a number of characteristics that should mark him down.

I mean you are supposed to look impressive, and have a ringing voice and an air of omniscience, and yoiu shouln'd ever admit to making mistakes.

You aren't supposed to be stout and balding with a nasal whine of a voice, and say things like "My anger boiled over and triggered a stupid decision...Acting with all the calmness and rationality of a bull elephant, I made a long and bitter personal attack on John. (From "If Voting Changed Anything, They'd Abolish It".)

But, just for the record - a Thames TV Harris Poll in 1984 found that 74% of Londoners opposed abolition of the GLC, and that 61% thought Ken Livingstone was doing a good job.

And in a letter to Thatcher a few months earlier the minister carrying responsibility for abolition, Patrick Jenkin write "The 1985 elections cannot be allowed to go ahead: other objections apart, abolition would be a major issue in the elections."

To get back to te question I opened with, I've been thinking about the distinction between three things - arrogance, vanity, and pomposity. It strikes me that Ken's trick has been that he has managed to combine the element of arrogance and vanity that virtually all politicians seem to need with a total lack of pomposity. The only other politicians I can think of who seem to have done this are Mo Mowlam and Alan Clark (though he compensated by having an incredibly high level of both arrogance and vanity).