If anybody were cruel enough to conduct an ideological paternity test on Ken Livingstone’s article in the Guardian this morning, the resultant DNA read-out would surely see a bloke called Georgi Dimitrov hauled before the Child Support Agency and landed with a hefty maintenance bill.
Let’s skip the bits where Livingstone (pictured) offers the de rigeur exculpation for Meltdown Thursday. As the man points out, his share of the capital’s vote went up by both relative and absolute measures. There’s no gainsaying the psephology, so on that score alone, the ‘it wasn’t me guv’ routine has to be entirely convincing.
The money paragraph is probably this assertion:
Following May 1 some people are posing the choice as between moving ‘to the left’ or ‘to the right’. This is not the right question. Labour must place itself at the centre of a progressive alliance that can solve the problems facing the country.
The notion of being ‘neither right nor left but in front’ is one of the most malleable memes in modern political rhetoric; over the past two decades, we have all heard variations on this theme trotted out by Greens, Lib Dems, and even the fascist right.
It’s hackneyed beauty is in its very evasiveness, the way in which it loosely promises everything to everybody and yet simultaneously nothing to nobody. This is non-positional positioning, vacuity elevated to the level of principle.
In this specific case, it translates to an argument for getting the Labour Party in London – and by implication, nationally as well – to bring the Greens on board, and hopefully the Liberal Democrats too.
Although there is no reference to Respect Renewal in the article as such, Livingstone has earlier dropped hints that there is a place for George Galloway inside a city-wide Big Tent, if only because it remains the beneficiary of a not negligible mosque-directed block vote.
It is also plain that the City would be a welcome, indeed critical, component in any lash-up. Livingstone makes repeated reference to the support he enjoys from big business. Yet the labour movement does not merit a single mention.
Given the omission of any reference to working class organisations – and I fail to see how this omission can be otherwise than by design – the implication is that trade unions are not regarded as core constituents of the progressive alliance Livingstone has in mind.
This is qualitatively new in terms of the history of projects of this type. For the first time since 1935, when Dimitrov harangued the seventh congress of the Comintern with a call for what has since become known as popular frontism, the working class is not accorded even a walk-on part in such a schema.
Nor is the progressive alliance justified in terms of any longer-term socialist strategy, however dilute. Unlike the doctrine that underpinned the orthodoxy of Stalinist parties for decades – including the Communist Party of Great Britain’s calls for an ‘anti-monopoly alliance’ – it doesn’t even seem to be envisaged as the first stage of a stages theory. Indeed, its goals are notably timid:
There are three tasks for a government and a mayor - to ensure the country and London are an economic success; to ensure everyone shares in that success; and to ensure that success is sustainable in the long run through improving the environment.
Livingstone maintains that ‘the difference[s] with the Tories are stark’, but doesn’t expand on this point. Little wonder; there is nothing here to which David Cameron could not sign up, at least verbally. With economic success defined in capitalist terms – and the Square Mile will ensure that it would be so defined – the Conservatives even have a legitimate claim to be the best vehicle to bring it about.
The net result of implementing Livingstone’s suggestions would be yet more cartel politics, with the outer limits of its radicalism designated by what is acceptable to hedge funds and venture capital. An ambitious, assertive and confident left could and should press for a whole lot more than that.
Posted at 13:55, 9 May 2008
Comments (30)
I don't often agree with you on everything Dave, but on this one I think you have nailed it - well done - good post.
Livingstone's analysis is so Blairite its a return to the dream of Lib Labism in the 19th century - its as though he wishes the Labour Party had never been founded in the first place.
The puzzling thing is why so much of the Left still seem to think that Lindsey German was wrong in principle to stand against Livingstone - surely this article underlines the need for a socialist alternative to Labour now more than ever.
Snowball
No political party is ever 'wrong in principal' to stand against another political party; if they are not confident enough to assert their ideas, they have no real function.
But - as an SWPer - what political conclusion do you draw from Lindsey's 0.9% showing last week?
The political conclusion I draw is that it takes time for new names for parties to win the trust of and register in the consciousness of the electorate. Had the split in Respect not happened and if Lindsey had been standing with the name Respect she would have got a slightly better vote. But too few Londoners had any idea of who the Left List were, and we got the kind of votes that were appropriate to that.
Of course there was also a more general squeeze on the left going on in terms of a push to 'Stop Boris - Vote Ken', which was picked up by the media.
Good old Snowball! Not a man to deviate from party orthodoxy, no matter untenable.
Do you really believe that if Left List stands again - which it presumably won't - its vote would go any higher?
Do you really believe that you lost votes because people were confused about which grouping represented 'Continuity Respect'?
Is there any point in pretending to be a 'coalition' - a coalition involving nobody else - to score a derisory 0.9%? Isn't it time to get serious about politics?
By 'getting serious about politics', I presume you mean joining the sinking ship of New Labour to try and...well what exactly? 'Reclaim it'? Fight a desperate rearguard action to save Labourism from destroying itself?
Sorry, Dave, serious politics lies to the left of the Labour Party - whatever form that may come to take in the future...
I'm not necessarily saying that; all I am saying is that the Left List is not serious politics.
And I would agree that the Left List doesn't exactly represent too much at the moment.
It would seem Galloways influence in the "mosque directed vote" is on the wane.
He miraculaously managed to poll much less in the City and East Constituency than Abdulmuhit.
I don't think Kilroy Silk even finished second within his own party.In the same seat.
Yes Dave: the reference in the Morning Star piece to the Liberals having got nowhere being somehow connected to their failure to endorse Livingstone's 'progressive alliance' really did it for me. I expected the blether about business support for the Mayor. Didn't you post once about that well-known ponce - in the word's classic sense - John Ross touting for trade as a corporate Consultant while on his £150,000 a year salary?
One point of difference. Even the old Stalinist Popular Fronts drew a line at the bigger monopoly capitalist fish.
Mind you all this popular-frontism has been seen elsewhere. According to the ever-reliable Weekly Worker just out the chappie who stood for the Liberals (I've already forgotten his name) put the Left List on his second preference.
Andrew: The Left List cannot be accused of 'Popular Frontism' just because a prominent individual member of the Liberal Democrats voted for us!
Snowball - you gave this to us on a plate - I agree, the Left List certainly cannot be accused of being popular....
[RESPECT] remains the beneficiary of a not negligible mosque-directed block vote.
I hoped Snowball might have objected to this for old time's sake, but evidently not.
This is a smear, and rather a tired one at that. At one time it wasn't entirely unfounded - there was some rather opportunistic mosque-based mobilising in the early days of RESPECT - but the coalition's never been the beneficiary of a "mosque-directed bloc vote", and it certainly isn't now.
Phil,
In which case why did Galloway credit the Islamic Forum Europe (a Jammaat e Islami Organisation based in East London Mosque) for his victory in Bethnal Greeen.
"I am indebted more than I can say, more than it would be wise for them for me to say, to the IFE….I believe they played the decisive role in this historic victory"
The payback of course being GG's agreement to support Miah for the seat.
Dave: your analysis of livingstone's proposed right-wing Popular Front is spot-on, and has saved me the trouble of making excatly your points.
"Snowball": why was it that (according to London AWL comrades), the SWP was less than enthusiastic (OK: downright resistant) about accepting the support of the AWL for the "left List" - despite the fact that we were the *only* non-SWP force to support it?
complete red herring about the name change. Parties that have actual local bases have changed names and retained their vote (see, for instance Michael Lavelette's vote from the SA to Respect). The SWP has been existed as a party for 35 years, standing under a variety of names for the last 5-10 years, if they aren't able to get any votes they have only themselves to blame.
With regards to the SWP/Left List conundrum, Jack R nailed it.
Dave - you seem to have a real blindspot where Ken is concerned. Witness your witless pre-election verdict that there was 'no clear water' between them on policy.
Since the mayor really only has power over transport, and Ken was calling for a £25 charge on gas guzzlers, free bike rental and a low emissions zone, and Boris was offering precisely fuck all, that seems odd.
What I read Ken as calling for here is a red-green progressive alliance - which I think would work well at national level. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and LibDems are far 'greener' than New Labour, at least on paper.
Meanwhile your groupuscules lefty groups and the unions appear totally blind to the environmental imperative - even when it could be harnassed as a good youth vote winner.
Jim Denham said:
""Snowball": why was it that (according to London AWL comrades), the SWP was less than enthusiastic (OK: downright resistant) about accepting the support of the AWL for the "left List" - despite the fact that we were the *only* non-SWP force to support it?"
Most amusing, Mr D.
(I suggest a competition for a better oxymoron than "Support from the AWL".)
I would just point out in response to some trollery here that Islamic Forum Europe has backed various political forces, including New Labour. GG didn't really think the IFE was behind the relatively strong vote for Renewal in City and East. In all likelihood, the chap was sensibly tickling the IFE bottom with his beard.
As for the Left List's atrocious result, for which I blame an unenlightened electorate, I see that there were a few problems for us: 1) relative anonymity; 2) a shift to the right in the voting pattern, with Tory wankers motivated to come out and Back Boris; 3) the fact that no one knew who the fuck we were (see point one); 4) a high turnout, driving up the number of votes we needed overall to get a decent percentage; 5) our obscurity (see points one and three); 6) given the difficulties we faced, we were unable to establish the kind of base that makes for mass politics, and which we had clearly established via Respect; 7) lack of notoriety (see passim). In other parts of the country, we did better, generally where we have had time to establish a presence in the past.
Anyway Dave, you're a member of the Labour Party now, aren't you? How do you propose to respond to the curious situation of voters punishing Labour's rightist lurches by either abstaining or voting for the right? Especially when New Labour responds by moving to the right? Do you have a prospectus for the Left in this impasse, perhaps a Rumplestiltskin strategy for turning Labour into gold? It's very good that you're so perceptive about Livingstone, but hardly any use if it derives from the same perspective that compelled you to flee aboard a sinking ship.
I would just point out in response to some trollery here that Islamic Forum Europe has backed various political forces, including New Labour. GG didn't really think the IFE was behind the relatively strong vote for Renewal in City and East. In all likelihood, the chap was sensibly tickling the IFE bottom with his beard.
Galloways comment was in relation to the 2005 BG&B Election.
Pre beard.
Post deal with Miah.
http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/september03_index.php?l=52
of course, there wasn't just a swing to the Right where people had a more left-wing alternative. Does the SWP not take any responsibility for changing its electoral front every couple of years? For not standing consistent organisations that build a serious base in their communities and can maintain a vote after a name change?
"In other parts of the country, we did better" said Lenin.
In Manchester Rusholme the LL's premier candidate and previously Respect's only candidate city wide Nahella got about half the votes of 2007 and 40% of 2006. Which is hardly proving your thesis. Kay who was forced not to stand in 2007 by a SWP handbagging got the same vote as in 2006.
Going back to Rusholme the united votes of LL and Labour even without the Greens would have run the LD Tory Boy very close. Separate, alas, the ambitious arse won comfortably.
He may now go on to challenge for Group leadership in a long overdue night of the long knives for Simon Ashley.
PS Kay was Respect renewal
most people have heard of the swp (esp. in london in the trendy areas!).
why then didn't the swp stand as swp? after decades with this name and a weekly paper surely this would have been far more sensible than the left list? they could have even stood on their full programme and dared to mention socialism!
if they couldn't use swp for some reason, then they could at least have stood as socialist, a much better ideological description than 'left'.
incidently, they stood as 'left party' in some areas, so maybe they are about to ditch the respect name and launch a new 'broad' left party, with only themselves in it.
anyway, neither the swp nor the labour left appear to be able to find a way out of the impasse.
i think only the pressure from below in the unions for disafiliation and serious steps taken for a new workers' party by left unions will end the crisis and start a new reorganisation of the left and begin our fight back. not straight forward or inevitable by any means! under the pressure of mass struggles in the future though it might be possible. we can hope.
comradely,
ks
Karl
If the SWP registered as a Political Party in their own name then they would have to declare their true membership figures and post “accounts” etc. Nuf said? http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm
All of this goes to show that 'left wing' politics in this country, as we know it, is dead. Any 'revival' will only come about if the left is willing to engage with working people on their level- however 'low' you might think that is. Otherwise you might as well quit and take up landscape gardening or something.
It would take a bold Labour leader to allow the financial and political relationship with the trade unions to melt away.
``As for the Left List's atrocious result, for which I blame an unenlightened electorate,''
lenin: I hope this is at least partly in jest, or at any rate, a remark on the need for agitation for enlightening the same. Otherwise, ``blame the voters'' seems a rather lame response for a failure to persuade them to vote for the Left List.
Sure, new name' was a factor in the LeftList's disastrous results.
But 'new name' is not just a technical matter, but a political matter. The fact that the SWP has had to stand under so many different names during the last ten years is testimony to its inability to remain part of a coalition with others.
Likewise, "*if* the split in Respect hadn't happened"?! Whaddya mean, *if*?! Isn't a split inevitable when you form unprincipled lash-ups with people who socialists shouldn't touch with a bargepole?
"Sure, new name' was a factor in the LeftList's disastrous results."
Being supported by the AWL didn't seem to have helped much either ; )