Losing less badly

In the Guardian, Ken Livingstone offfers his thoughts and recommendations on Labour's future, based on this premise: We lost in London. But in the context of very bad national results, Labour's results in London were the best for any major area of the country. Might I point out a small flaw in his reasoning? It's all about those first four words: We lost in London. They sort of make a point, you'd have thought. Labour lost in London. Labour might well have lost even worse elsewhere, but it still lost in London. A strategy based on losing less badly than elswhere isn't exactly a solid basis for victory, Ken.