Yes, I have rejoined the Labour Party. Dave Osler - a bloke who has spent most of the last decade arguing and working for a new political party to the left of New Labour, even writing a book making an extended case as to why such a party is essential - is now member L0093001 of Hackney North and Stoke Newington CLP.

All of the jibes I have used to take the piss out of Labour-supporting friends and family, all of the wisecracks in Labour Party plc, can now be thrown back in my face. Be my guest.

I am now in the same party that sent British troops to Iraq, the same party that scrapped student grants in the single most socially regressive piece of legislation introduced by any UK government since 1945.

I am in the same party as a sucession of racist semi-Stalinist and fully-Stalinist home secretaries that have repeatedly limited civil liberties. The same party my boss. I am a little sell-out careerist bastard. Take me out and have me shot.

There is even a good argument that journalists that speak their minds shouldn't join political parties in the first place. I certainly haven't had a very happy time in them over the last 25 years. I guess I just never did learn to keep my trap tactically closed, and don't suppose I ever will.

So here's vow number one: holding a Labour Party card won't shut me up. I think it is a reasonable requirement of party membership not to call for a vote in favour candidates of other parties. Other than that, I will think and say exactly what I would have thought and said if I wasn't in the Labour Party, especially when it comes to the politics of the Labour Party itself. Those that know will testify that I don't do diplomacy.

My political agenda inside New Labour will be the political agenda of this blog. I advocate working class-based democratic socialism, grounded in an ecumenical reading of Western Marxism, and taking in the ideas of feminism, ecosocialism, anarchism, radical liberalism and libertarianism where I feel those schools of thought have something relevant to say.

I favour such concepts as expanded trade union rights, a dramatic extension of public ownership and workers' control, left libertarian social policies that would cause instant myocardial infarction among Daily Mail leader writers, and a foreign policy that consistently promotes democracy and sustainable development. Capping everything else, I am clear that the environment is the most important issue facing humanity today.

In short, all the sorts of messages New Labour absolutely doesn't want to hear. If I have any success at all in gaining a hearing, I expect that the apparatchiks will try to shut me up. OK. If I am expelled, so be it.

But vow number two: I will be politically accountable every step of the way. I will explain my political thinking, and be willing to listen to the counter-arguments.

And I do know I have a heck of lot of humble pie to eat on this one. I have since 1995 advocated the creation of a 'party of recomposition' in Britain, and been involved with various attempts to build one, notably the Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Alliance.

I suppose I finally realised the wheels had come off that project when the SWP unilaterally decided to ditch the Socialist Alliance and launch Respect. as I said at the time:

'Revolutionary socialism in England signed its own suicide note last week, and it came in the unlikely shape of a billet-doux to George Galloway. The overwhelming majority of the far left south of the border has lined up behind a project that seeks not so much to put the working class in the saddle, as Orwell expressed it, but to put a £150,000-a-year Saudi-bankrolled crypto-tankie into Strasbourg. Bang goes the Trotskyist neighbourhood.'

Notice I said 'England'. I did have hopes that Scottish Socialist Party would prove a more viable model. This summer's implosion has disillusioned me, in the literal sense of the word.

It was a short step from the realisation that Trotskyism is finished in Britain to the realisation that Trotskyism is largely finished internationally. There are perhaps one or two countries where something worthwhile could ultimately emerge from the wreckage. The Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire in France and the New Socialist Group in Canada have at least shown themselves capable of new forms of thought and new forms of organisation. But broadly speaking, the far left has failed to understand how global politics has changed over the last two decades.

It remains ossified in a strange twilight world of chop-logic, centred around the correct application of analyses of the world of 70 and 80 years ago to the world today. You can read more of my thoughts on this here.

It is not that there will not be future revolutions. The increasing social polarisation generated by the global neoliberal project makes that certain. But Trotskyist parties won't be leading them anywhere, any time soon. In practice, the top cadre of the major tendencies are well aware of this. That is what makes Respect - to some extent - rational opportunism.

Islamism will be a factor in world politics in the decades to come. If you are going to ditch the working class as the centre of your political universe, best to go with the flow. The same can be said of the efforts of the Grant international to ingratiate itself with Hugo Chavez.

The failure of the entire tradition of 'socialism from below' to win any real social implantation anywhere in the world condemns it to irrelevance. It is now reduced to small numbers of people commenting from the sidelines. Not the ideal situation. But better than the Faustian pacts some groups have elected for instead.

Just to make it clear, then, I am not joining the Labour Party as an 'entrist'. I am not affiliated with any Trotskyist organisation and won't be signing up to any of the surprisingly numerous entrist tendencies that are still active inside Labour.

I am not joining the Labour Party on the basis that either it can be converted into a revolutionary party or that a revolutionary tendency can be built within it. Both those ideas are evidently infantile.

Nor will I be trying to 'reclaim New Labour from the Blairites', because I don't think that can be done. The many reasons why that is impossible are aptly summarised here.

It's even quite likely I won't find myself in alignment with the backward Stalinist-influenced rump that today styles itself 'the Labour left'.

The present Labour left is sectarian, clique-ish, and utterly unable to understand the modern world. Essentially, it still conceives of socialist utopia as a nationalised gas industry, much as if globalisation, the collapse of communism, political Islam and global warming had never happened.

As a result, it automatically fails politically, because its backward-looking bureaucratic outlook condemns it in advance to fail. That is why it lost the battle with Blairism without even putting up a serious fight. It couldn't even advance a viable alternative set of ideas.

I will, of course, be backing the John McDonnell leadership campaign, even though I am well aware that it has no chance of success. Its strength is its tacit recognition of some of the themes above, and the need to involve socialists both inside and outside the Labour Party in the reinvention of relevant democratic socialist policies for today.

If it can win even a very narrow layer of a few hundred people to that project, it clearly represents the most viable strategy for even limited leftwing advance that is currently available in the UK.

That is, of course, a limited horizon. But then, these are times when limited horizons surely trump strategic dead ends.

Blogging Brownite MP Tom Watson has just posted this tit-bit:

'Friends tell me that Jeremy Corbyn - pictured - is on the verge of throwing his hat into the ring for the deputy leadership. I don't know why he doesn't go the whole way and stand for the leadership. He has more humour than John McDonnell.'

If the story's true, that's excellent news. Can I hereby declare myself the first Labour blogger to endorse the new hard left dream ticket?

Yeah, yeah. I know that the last time the left challenged for both jobs, Benn and Heffer secured just 12%. And this time round, it's not even sure that McDonnell and Corbyn will make it onto the ballot papers

Even so, the contest - if it does take place - should constitute an important barometer of Labour Party feeling. Every percentage point over the 1988 tally is well worth fighting for.

Looks like Jeremy Corbyn (pictured) probably is going for the Labour number two job, if this story on Guardian Unlimited is anything to go by. Asked directly if he is considering standing, the Islington North MP answered:

"Nothing's decided until the new year. But there needs to be an anti-war candidate.

Mr Corbyn - who is backing Mr McDonnell for the top job - refused to say whether the two men had spoken about a combined ticket, saying merely he had not spoken to the Hayes MP "for a couple of days".

Unusually mealy-mouthed for Jeremy. But I think we can take that as a 'yes'. By the way, help a Labour Party newbie here. The vote is by STV, right? So it makes sense to say 'vote Corbyn, transfer to Cruddas'. Or no?

Hay un problema, dudes. Getting on the ballot paper requires the signatures of 44 Labour MPs. That is a major barrier to even one candidate to the left of Gordon Brown making the cut. If both try to do so, neither will suceed. Simple as that. Simpson is a savvy bloke and realises all this, of course:

'Mr Simpson said that the two men might have to agree that one would stand down to give the other one a clear run.

'"The harsh message for both of them is if they neither of them can get the 44 [nominations], there are going to have to be discussions between them about getting people to switch."'

Quite. And no surprises for who Simpson wants to see back down. The snag is, even though McDonnell is a no-hoper, Old Nine Homes is a no-hope no-hoper, if you see what I mean.

Given that only real point of running a Labour left candidate at all – other than to fuck up Gordon’s coronation party, a worthy aim in itself – is to regalvanise the Labour left activist base, McDonnell is clearly the man for the job.

Ladies and gentlemen, raise your glasses to the Socialist Campaign Group. So faction-ridden they cannot even organise a purely tokenistic leadership challenge without making a pig's ear of it. Doncha just love ‘em?

Incidentally, Simpson has made it clear that he has no personal ambitions in all this:

'Mr Simpson also sought to quash rumours that he may stand in the deputy leadership race as part of a dream ticket with Mr Meacher.

'"What I have been trying to do is persuade [Michael] Meacher to stand for the leadership."'

Update: Mole writes in the comments box:

'Alan Simpson IS planning a deputy leadership bid. You can take that as fact. He's been driving the Meacher bid nearly single-handedly SOLELY so he can launch his deputy leadership bid on the back of it. The idea is to launch a 'Climate Change' ticket.'

Kinda makes sense. Simpson is a smart guy. There must presumably be some method in his madness.

To his credit, Meacher is pretty straight-talking by politico standards. Meanwhile, a couple of Dave’s Part comments box regulars manage to get their oar in. Well done Susan, for eliciting the promise that he will drop out of the running if John McDonnell gets more backers.

A majority on the Labour left support John McDonnell and see your campaign as a spoiler which will only split the vote and stop a contest. Will you stand down if John has more nominations when Blair resigns? SUSAN PRESS, Calder Valley

‘There is no evidence whatever that a majority of people on the Labour Party left and the affiliated trade union movement support John McDonnell for leader. I have a great deal of respect for John, but I don't believe he can get the necessary 45 nominations, whereas I believe I can. I am not splitting the vote, but rather giving the centre-left the chance, to run a candidate who can pass the nominations threshold. But I do agree that whichever of the two of us has the larger number of nominations, the other should stand down when Tony Blair resigns.’

And here’s Marshajane in action:

You criticise the 'Westminster bubble' but said you spent the last two months talking to MPs about your campaign. Does this not show you have the same disrespect for people's views as the rest of the Westminster bubble? MARSHA JANE THOMPSON, by email

’I said that when people around the country come to vote, they may well take a quite different view of things from the inward-looking Westminster scene, and should be listened to. But I also extensively canvassed my colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party because they alone are the ones who make the nominations.’

Finally, I thought this one was rather cheeky .,.

You always look a bit boring. Are you? ROB JACKSON, by email

’No. Why? Are you?’

Leading psephologist Anthony King takes one look at the results and declares:

'Neither Michael Meacher nor John McDonnell, who have said they would like to stand, has any significant support among the rank and file.'

Asked ‘in any contest for the Labour leadership, who would you vote for if the following candidates were nominated?’, the punters put Brown on 52% and Miliband on 14%. Meacher and McDonnell scored 6% apiece, while 18% were not sure and 5% would not vote. That’s sobering stuff, although at least the combined left candidate score reaches double figures, which is better than it could have been.

Oh well, look on the bright side. At least Clarke and Milburn will be seriously pissed off. And 35% disagreed with the statement that ‘to go one winning elections, Labour needs to govern from the centre, not to adopt more leftwing policies’. That said, 55% agreed.

For the deputy job, first preferences go 25% for Benn, 16% for Johnson, 11% for Harman, 9% for Hain, a disappointing 6% for Cruddas and just 5% for Blears.

Update: Thanks to Tim in the comments box for pointing out that the figures as published by the Torygraph do not break down the results between party members and affiliated trade unionists. But the YouGov website does, revealing:

’Amongst party members 69% would vote for Brown to 20% for Miliband, 8% for John McDonnell and 3% for Michael Meacher. In a straight fight between Brown and Miliband, Brown would win 70% to 30%. Amongst trade unionists the two left-wing candidates have more support, but Brown remains the runaway leader - Brown 63%, Miliband 15%, Meacher 13%, McDonnell 10% - in a straight fight it would be 64% to 36%.’

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/951

Three to one sounds more like the ratio of support for McDonnell and Meacher that I would have expected among individual members.

But the maths don’t quite stack up. Surely John is averaging 9% between the two sections of the electoral college? Presumably – for whatever reason – the pollsters have stripped out the don’t knows, and the newspaper hasn’t.

’More than half half wanted Mr Brown to win, or thought him certain to become leader, with no significant support for any alternative figure. Very few saw a leadership election in terms of personalities, but were instead impatient for a chance to debate their core beliefs and the party’s future …

‘The lack of a credible — or sufficiently courageous — challenger thus poses a dilemma for the chancellor’s supporters. Eight members backed John McDonnell — the left-wing backbench MP who was the first candidate to declare — to be leader, compared with 43 supporting Mr Brown or regarding his succession as inevitable. Only a handful of other Labour figures were named by members in the first instance …’

Who do you want as Labour’s next leader?
Gordon Brown 43
John McDonnell 8
Michael Meacher 3
"Not Gordon Brown" 2
Peter Hain 2
Charles Clarke 2
David Miliband 1
Dennis Skinner 1
Tony Blair should stay 1
Undecided 17

Do you want a contest?
Yes 66
No/"not for sake of it" 6
Don’t mind/no view 8

If so, who should stand?
David Miliband 6
John Reid 5
John McDonnell 5
Charles Clarke 2
Alan Johnson 1
Alan Milburn 1
Unsure 14

Hmmm. Just thinking out loud here. But suppose neither McD nor Meach gets the 44 nominations and the Blairites can’t find anyone stupid enough to put their head above the parapet.

In other words, suppose New Labour did decide to go ahead with an affirmative ballot. Of course Brown would win. But the number of abstentions and votes against him might just prove embarrassingly high. And that wouldn’t be a good start to the Brown premiership.

The feeling among many mainstream party members locally is that she has been more concerned with appearing on telly than putting in the hard graft required of a constituency representative.

Meanwhile, even some of the 'Ackney Norf hardcore Trot cadre crew have been disquieted by her decision to pay £10,000 a year for a private education for her son and by her failure - so far, anyway - to declare support for leftwing leadership contender John McDonnell.

Then again, her voting record on most socialist touchstone issues has been pretty consistently good. Her decision to vote against the government on Trident is a case in point.

However, if Diane does need to seek re-endorsement, I'm told that there are at least three local women councillors ready to make a contest of it, namely Rita Krishna, Nargis Khan and former deputy mayor Jessica Crow.

Every vote counts, as the saying goes. So readers ... what do you think? Is it my bounden proletarian duty to back Abbott or not?

Michael Meacher sets out the policies for his Labour leadership bid in The Times today. There is a call for reduced inequality, but no details on how this might be achieved; some commonsense ideas on how to reduce the prison population; a demand for the decentralisation of power through constitutional reform; great stress on climate change, including the need to reduce carbon emissions by at least 60% by 2050; and a ‘troops out soon’ stance on Iraq, based on the advice of British rather than US military commanders.

Thoughts/observations?

‘BAY CITY ROLLER TO HOOK UP WITH TONY BENN AT GLASTONBURY'S LEFT FIELD

‘Former Bay City Roller Eric Faulkner - pictured left - will open a session with veteran Labour politician Tony Benn on Sunday afternoon at this year’s Glastonbury Festival under the banner "Another World is Possible".

‘The Left Field stage is promoted by the Battersea and Wandsworth TUC who own the Worker's Beer Company. It has grown from a beer tent to the biggest covered stage on the Glastonbury site with a capacity of 5000. The promoters are promising a stunning international line up this year in support of the global fight for economic and social justice.

‘Geoff Martin, Left Field Director, said:

‘"Eric Faulkner is a top bloke and dead proud of his union roots and he was blown away when we suggested he open for Tony Benn at Glastonbury.

‘"It's been suggested that there's a touch of Life on Mars about this connection - Eric was a teenage star in the 1970s when Tony Benn was a Labour minister.

‘"One things for sure - they'll have a packed house at this years Glastonbury under the banner "Another World is Possible" and watch out for a rendition of Bye Bye Baby specially for Tony Blair."’

‘The truth is that I have 24 signed statements from MPs nominating me, with further support from another dozen colleagues who have indicated that they will sign up once the contest is about to start.

Michael Meacher MP
Lab, Oldham West and Royton

Two dozen signed pledges? Is that really the God's Honest, Michael? Oddly enough, the page listing campaign supporters on the MM website does not name anybody with higher electoral office than councillor.

By contrast, John McDonnell’s site names 11 sitting MPs who back him publically. Not just verbally, but in writing on the worldwide web. Still, perhaps the mystery Meacherites are just keeping their powder dry.

John McDonnell and Michael Meacher have done the sensible thing and agreed that whichever of them garners the fewest nominations in the Labour leadership race will back out, The Times reports this morning. Or have they?

‘But last night The Times discovered there are tensions between the two candidates, with Mr McDonnell saying that a deal had been struck but Mr Meacher saying the details still had to be worked out.

‘By contrast, Mr Meacher said that there was still some way to go before the final details were ironed out. "We are moving towards what I hope will be an agreement. I think it’s jumping the gun to say there is an agreement at the moment though. I do think we will reach an agreement along those lines. The important thing is there is a single centre-left candidate."

Read that last quote from Old Nine Homes again. ‘The important thing is there is a single centre-left candidate’. MM locates himself on the centre-left; McDonnell clearly doesn’t. Nothing like leaving yourself some wriggle room, is there, Michael?

[Hat tip: Stroppyblog]

This press release in my in box this morning:

JOINT LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN PRESS CONFERENCE

ON BEHALF OF
 
JOHN MCDONNELL MP AND MICHAEL MEACHER MP

4.00 pm
 
THURSDAY 10TH MAY
 
Macmillan Room
 
Portcullis House

TO ANNOUNCE WHICH CANDIDATE HAS MOST PARLIAMENTARY SUPPORT AND WILL BE CONTINUING WITH THEIR CHALLENGE FOR THE LABOUR PARTY LEADERSHIP
 
Thereafter the successful candidate will be available for interview from the Atrium, Portcullis House and elsewhere, as required 

 
-ends-

What on earth is going on?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

McDonnell and Meacher Campaign Update . . . Press Conference postponed

As agreed, the campaign teams for Michael Meacher and John McDonnell have met to assess the level of support for each candidate. The outcome is that the issue is too close to call at the moment and a number of clarifications need to be made.

The good news for the Labour Party is that there is clearly sufficient support to ensure that a leadership candidate will come forward from the Centre-Left.

The Campaign Teams will reconvene on Monday to clarify which candidate goes forward from the Centre-Left. There will be a press conference late in the afternoon. Time and venue tbc.

-Ends-

This from the Evening Standard:

Gordon Brown looks set to be unopposed this week after an admission from Labour's Left-wing that MPs are failing to unite behind sole rival John McDonnell.

Nominations close on Thursday and the Hayes and Harlington MP needs 45 endorsements to qualify.

This press release in response:

PRESS NOTICE…………….PRESS NOTICE……………….

For immediate release

Meacher campaign rubbishes Standard report and confirms MPs are switching to McDonnell

Alan Simpson MP, Parliamentary Manager for the Michael Meacher Campaign said: "The story in the Standard today is complete nonsense. Michael, myself and the whole of the Meacher team are absolutely committed to supporting John McDonnell. We are in the process of contacting all of Michael's supporters and we have no doubt that the vast majority will be prepared to switch their support to John."

ends

As I said earlier … McDonnell isn’t on the ballot paper yet. And, in all fairness, all Meacher can do is encourage his supporters to switch. He is in no position to give orders.

Staunch Brownite finance spokeswoman Wendy Alexander (pictured) has thrown her hat into the ring. The other two likely contenders, Andy Kerr and Margaret Curran, have ruled themselves out, paving the way for the sort of coronation that gave Gordon Brown the keys to Number Ten.

Now the BBC reports that the Campaign for Socialism, the main grouping on the Scottish Labour left, is holding an emergency meeting this weekend to discuss mounting a potential challenge. Any candidate would need nominations from six MSPs.

Questions for Scottish readers/anyone else on the case:
(1) Who are CfS likely to stand? Names with potted political biogs, please.
(2) What are the chances of finding six MSP backers?
(3) Is the same electoral college system in use north of the border?
(4) What sort of percentage could a leftie reasonably expect to poll if he/she makes it onto the ballot paper?
(5) Likely responses from Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity?

UPDATE: Several of the questions I pose above are answered in this piece in The Scotsman:

The left wing of the parliamentary party, the Campaign for Socialism Group, will meet on Sunday to discuss putting forward a candidate, but with only five MSPs and limited support, the chances of one coming forward are remote. Bill Butler, the MSP for Glasgow Anniesland, was mentioned last night as the only possible member of the group who might stand. But he will need six MSPs to sign his nomination form and it was not clear where those nominations would come from …

One critical response to [Ms Alexander’s] likely elevation came from Tommy Sheridan, the Solidarity leader. He said Ms Alexander would be "disastrous" for Labour, adding: "Socialists who are left in the Labour Party must be in despair that they can't even find a left candidate to stand."

Still interested to hear what the Scottish comrades make of it all, though.

Around 300 Scottish Labour lefts met in Glasgow on Sunday to determine whether or not they could muster the five MSPs necessary to mount a challenge to Wendy Alexander for the party leadership north of the border. They couldn’t.

[Hat tip: a gloating Luke Akehurst]

The sitting MP since 1983 has been 77-year-old Campaign Group stalwart Bob Waring (pictured), who was deselected. As a result, he is likely to stand as an independent.

'Serbian Bob', as he was dubbed for his pro-Milosevic views during the Kosovo conflict, is a member of the RMT parliamentary group and will probably attract the backing of the rail and shipping union.

He told the Liverpool Daily Post:

“The party leadership (under Blair and Brown) have regarded me as a thorn in their side as I rebelled against their betrayal of the basic principles of the Labour Party.

“Worst of all has been the disaster of the invasion of Iraq, an illegal war in defiance of the United Nations.

[Hat tip: For a New Left Party, a new blog that does pretty much what it says on the tin]

The natural tendency is to close ranks, to prevaricate, make excuses, advance more or less spurious justifications, plead attenuating circumstances, and shrug off inconvenient accusations as baseless allegations mischievously gotten up by political opponents.

Yet such desperate avoidance of candour leaves socialists open to accusations of double standards and logical inconsistency. Are we for the highest standards of probity in politics, or are we not?

When those ostensibly on the left are under fire from the right, to call for them to put up a convincing defence case or take the rap is not a route to easy popularity; some even regard it as tantamount to scabbing. My criticisms of George Galloway after the ‘cash for oil’ charges five years ago brought me intensive opprobrium from those now making the very much the same points.

Today it is the turn of Livingstone race adviser Lee Jasper (pictured), who has been forced to step down after revelations that he sent intimate emails to a woman just days before advancing a £65,000 grant to one of her projects.

Now, that infinitesimally small proportion of the population at all interested in the nuances of leftwing politics will know that I am closer to the McDonnell/Corbyn wing of the Campaign Group than the Livingstone/Socialist Action side of things, and that relationships are sometimes less than comradely.

But in as far as 99% of the politically aware public lump all of the above together as ‘the Labour left’, the Labour left should take a clear stance on the Jasper affair. If the reported details are correct - and I haven't seen them being denied - then the allegations must be taken seriously.

Let’s leave aside the fact that the use of a work email account to send messages of an inappropriate nature to a colleague would merit disciplinary proceedings in many workplaces. Cheesy chat-up lines are not a crime, although some of Jaspers's are so bad they probably should be; misuse of public money very clearly is.

Jasper properly benefits from the presumption of innocence and the right to due process, as anyone else does in these circumstances. Earlier claims against him have been investigated, and Scotland Yard has ruled that he has no criminal case to answer.

But it is not enough to cry ‘racist stitch up’ and dodge all questions. Nor will it do to accuse Andrew Gilligan of being a Tory; I happen to know he isn’t.

Jasper has only his own actions to blame for finding himself in the unenviable position he now occupies. It would be a huge mistake for Livingstone to allow his project to be prejudiced by understandable loyalty to a political associate of long standing.

I hope – for the sake of the Labour left and for the good of the Labour Party as a whole ahead of the crucial London elections on May 1 - that Jasper is exonerated. If not, we should, to use his own choice of words, let him cook. Honey glazing optional.

But somewhere deep inside in the cerebral cortex – presumably next to that bit that continues to urge you to smoke, however long ago you gave up – whispers a siren voice of temptation. As an ex-Trot, I am experiencing the political equivalent of nicotine cravings.

The thing is, these elections offer London voters who identify ideologically as either leftists or rightists the chance to mark a first preference for whatever whackjob outfit comes closest to their ideal, and then pragmatically transfer to either Labour or the Conservatives. It won't make any difference at the end of the day.

Given the choice of three – count ‘em, three – leftwing alternatives to New Labour, why not indulge in what would amount to no more than a minor extramarital knee-trembler in the privacy of the voting booth? Go on, you know you want to! Labour HQ will never find out!

I’m even spoiled for choice. While manufacturers of high definition televisions have been able to agree on a standard format, the Socialist Workers' Party and the British section of the Fourth International clearly haven’t, so both versions of Respect will be touting their wares. Pictured are George Galloway (left) and Lindsey German (right), two of the people the factionally divided organisation will be standing on May 1, as well as some other guy in a stripey sweatshirt.

And if I suddenly come over all tankie – well, the election is on May Day, tovarisch - the Communist Party of Britain is after my business, too.

Sure, supporting these tickets would be gesture politics of the purest kind. None of them believe in a parliamentary road to socialism, but all have plenty of experience of the municipal road to lost deposits; they cannot be expecting anything other than humiliating drubbings.

But then, gesture politics shouldn’t automatically be ruled out. Wouldn’t the largest possible left of Labour vote underline to the Labour leadership that a section of the electorate cannot be taken for granted? Wouldn’t that indirectly benefit the Labour left?

That’s a possible argument. But I am a Labour Party member, and it is an entirely reasonably requirement for membership of any party to vote for those it nominates for public office.

I suppose my major reason for not backing the trio of Marxist lists – even clandestinely – is that they all strike me as entirely pointless. I could understand, for instance, if the SWP wanted to run what gets called in Trot jargon a ‘propaganda candidacy’, using the London-wide mailouts and the free broadcasts to push the full revolutionary programme, with the general idea of picking up a few recruits.

But instead, all three far left alternatives are standing on an almost identical political basis; each of them wants to go back to the Old Labour future. Only sectarianism and accumulated grudges prevent them from getting their act together and creating a unified platform that could perhaps have pulled in union support. If the far left doesn't take itself seriously, why should anybody else?

Livingstone, meanwhile, has of course called on RMT members to cross picket lines and backed the Met over the Jean Charles de Menezes case. Allegedly he pours whisky on his cornflakes.

The incumbent is even said to be under the sway of fanatical Trotskyites, hell bent on turning London into a socialist city-state through the unorthodox tactic of doling out bucketloads of spondoolicks to any women they vaguely fancy, in the vain hope of luring them into cold rubber-insulated sex in a Manchester hotel bedroom. Incredibly, some commentators say this like it is a bad thing.

Ultimately, it is continued Labour occupation of City Hall that will create the best conditions for the left to promulgate its ideas and promote its campaigns in the UK capital. The best way of ensuring that is to cut to the chase and vote Labour.

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.