This week’s issue of the East London Advertiser carries a letter from George Galloway congratulating local campaigners on preventing the construction of a multi storey hospital in a densely populated part of the borough. He goes on to make a couple of correct points about the role of democratic scrutiny of planning decisions and and the need for grassroots local campaigns.

It’s the last two paragraphs that I thought were interesting on account of what they did and didn’t say.


“The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has laid down a “social” housing target of 50 per cent for new homes. That should be a minimum requirement. But Tory mayoral candidate Boris Johnson has said he would abandon Livingstone’s target.

That is one of the reasons I will be vigorously campaigning against Boris the Buffoon in the GLA elections.”

The Tory voting readership of this site is pitifully small despite my attempts to court them so we don’t need to worry about hurting anyone’s feeling. The question is, if you were not planning to vote Tory who you should vote for? George seems to be obliquely hinting that he might back Livingstone on the strength of his fifty per cent “social” housing “target”. There is also his support for the Venezuelan revolution in his favour and his opposition to the war.

Targets are the curse of modern working life and it’s not unknown for figures and statistics to be manipulated to prove that the damned things have been met. Can anyone provide any evidence of a significant number of instances where this “social” housing “target” has been met? The more general impression is that Livingstone and New Labour are more favourably disposed towards the filthy rich than they are to the people who live in squalid, overcrowded, overpriced accommodation.

Another problem with Livingstone is that he has turned into the scab’s friend, particularly when the RMT takes action. As for Venezuela, the reception he organised for Hugo Chavez has been eclipsed by his enthusiastic defence of the organisation that summarily executed Jean Charles de Menezes.

Certainly the view of supporters of Socialist Resistance is that we do not think that it is possible to support Livingstone and we will argue this view inside Respect. As things stand at the moment Lindsey German is the only likely candidate to whom we will give our support for exactly the same reasons as we did the last time she stood for election. She has consistently supported workers who take industrial action, she is willing to criticise a police force that can execute innocent people with impunity and every vote for her is a vote against Livingstone’s vision of a London fit for finance capital and tax dodging billionaires.


Technorati : , ,
Del.icio.us : , ,

42 responses to “The Livingstone Problem”

  1. Liam

    You should take up the cause of Engliah independence, I get quite a few interesting Tory readers on that basis

    :o)

    Well you know I disagree,

    But this is what is really great.

    We are going to be able to debate this amongst ourselves and Respect Renewal can make its mind up involving a real debate, listening to the arguments own members, perhaps we will convince each other,, there will be people changing their minds, no line to follow, and the decision will be made collectivley by us, not made by another organistain with its headquarters in Vauxhall.

    Like

  2. And Charles de menezes can also listen to the two of you debate before making up his mind on whether to vote for Livingstone or German. except of course he cant. he cant because thanks to andy newmans favourite apologits for ian blairs shoot to kill policy charles and others like him are no longer with us.

    Like

  3. Blimey, this really is guilt by association:

    andy newmans favourite apologits for ian blairs shoot to kill policy

    I am becoming more evil by the day.

    Like

  4. Andy, show us the proof that you didn’t pull the trigger! I’ll bet you can’t!

    No more of this type of silly reasoning please.

    Like

  5. what silly reasoning are you talking about laim. if i wanted to accuse andy of pulling th trigger i would have said precisely that. i said something very different. andy newman argues that at least 70% of respect renewals propaganda should be on why living ton must win. germans campaign is in this contest a mere distraction. but livingstonedemounces those who denounce ian bliar for a shoot to kill policy and for ortgnaisng a cover up whn it was proven that the police had murdered the rong person. thanks to livingsontes whitewash it is mroe likely that we will see more innocent people murdered by the police.

    Like

  6. I agree with Liam, the only tenable position for socialists is to support Lindsey German, if the choice is her or Ken Livingston. This is not just a talking point for socialists either. A good section of Londoners are angry with Ken, and for all the right reasons.
    Respect was about many things but one of them for me was giving people who were switching off an option. Voting is at a terrible low, and many of the people who will vote for Lindsey will vote for no-one if the choice is Labour or Tory.

    Like

  7. I am glad SR is prepared to take an independent line from GG and I genuinely hope that Andy is right and space is created within RR to debate these issues. If the RR steering committee takes a position different to George and he amends his line acordingly I will give RR serious consideration.

    Like

  8. But margo the choice isn’t Lindsey or Ken

    the choice on planet earth is Boris or Ken.

    Like

  9. Can I just clarify something.

    Whatever we decide about forst preference for Lindsey or Ken, surely we can al agree on what George said:

    The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has laid down a “social” housing target of 50 per cent for new homes. That should be a minimum requirement. But Tory mayoral candidate Boris Johnson has said he would abandon Livingstone’s target.

    That is one of the reasons I will be vigorously campaigning against Boris the Buffoon in the GLA elections

    Like

  10. “As things stand at the moment Lindsey German is the only likely candidate to whom we will give our support for exactly the same reasons as we did the last time she stood for election. ”

    Bravo!

    Like

  11. ….but there is a slight problem here. There’s been a split in Respect.

    Lindsey German hasn’t got a hope in hell of winning and the only practical reason for her standing in competition with Livingstone is to make propaganda for socialist ideas and to build an organisation that can challenge the right wing leadership of the Labour Party.

    She’s not going to be saying “build either Respect(SWP), or if you like, Respect(R) on her election leaflets.

    So you’re stuck with a situation where you may be campaigning, actively or passively, for the very organsation you say has been wrecking Respect.
    Blimey!
    I would have thought it might make sense to set a few preconditions before embarking on such a course of self-destructive altruism.

    Such as; Lindsey German would need to be endorsed by some serious working class organisations in London and come to a meeting with Galloway, Bob Crow and the Socialist Party to reach a binding agreement on an electoral pact. Her campaign must also be committed to calling for a second preference vote for Livingstone and explaining why. viz: he has generally progressive policies on racism and international issues and allowing the Tory buffoon BJ in would be a disaster for London.

    On the very valid critcisms of Livingstone’s scabbing on the RMT and defence of shoot-to-kill cops, I’m sure Lindsey can make the case herself.

    Like

  12. RMT branches in London virtually unaminously voted to support Lindsey German – the RMT Bureaucracy declined to implement the vote and said that the RMT didn’t support Lindsey German – but this shows a working class organisation in support.

    Like

  13. TROUBLE IN PARADISE

    Obviously inevitable, but so soon and over such a lare issue. Should be inesresting.

    Like

  14. TROUBLE IN PARADISE

    Obviously inevitable, but so soon and over such a large issue. Should be interesting.

    (What weird typos)

    Like

  15. Liam, excellent argument.

    I goggled at Andy’s …and Respect Renewal can make its mind up involving a real debate, listening to the arguments own members, perhaps we will convince each other, there will be people changing their minds, no line to follow, and the decision will be made collectively by us… And on Christmas Eve Santas Claus flies around the world on his magic sleigh drawn by reindeer, and he leaves a present for every little boy and little girl who’s been good.

    Andy’s fantasy would have a greater chance of being believed if a) the RR conference had set up anything in the way of a formal structure (if you don’t know who your members are, how can you make a decision about anything?) and b) George Galloway had any sort of track record for abiding by such decisions.

    And just a quick correction to Adam – it was London Underground RMT branches’ representatives who voted 10-2 to support Lindsay’s candidacy. The vote doesn’t bind the RMT, but the substantive point that it’s indicative of working class support is spot on.

    Like

  16. …’the choice on planet earth is Boris or Ken’

    Andy you can be as dismissive as you like but that does not take away the fact of disillusionment with mainstream politics. It is precisely this idea of the choice being either Labour or Tory that has turned so many people off. And I repeat one of the reasons for something built to the left of and outside Labour.
    Friends in Dagenham and Barking tell again and again about the power of that disillusionment – and how it is harnessed by the BNP. For many people that choice between the two parties is no choice.
    Ken stands for a discredited ruling party that took us to war and is mired in corruption. Others have talked extensively about Ken’s own actions in recent times.
    An active campaign from the left will increase the turnout if anything and that is something that should be applauded (and is likely to benefit Ken in the long run).

    Like

  17. Andy Newman said-
    But margo the choice isn’t Lindsey or Ken the choice on planet earth is Boris or Ken.

    we have heard this argumen before. mark swerwokta refered to it in his speech to respedcts conference. the labour party keeps telling workers that the choise is not between them and respect or any other left iwng party. it is between new labour and the tories. mark explained that what was wrong with this arguments. and now we find george galloways supporters using it to defend ken livingstone.
    how will galloway justify standing against new labour at the next westminster elections. in a tighte contest respect renewal may split the anti tory vote. at least lindsy german is standing in single transferable vote elections. seco;nd preference votes can transfer to livinstone if socialists cn stomache doing this.
    as for alexs demand that conditions muxst be placed on linsay german first. what about placing some conditions on support for livings tone. how about dro;p support for a police shoot to kill polcy and stop scabbing on workers.

    Like

  18. Ken or Boris, Freedom pass for the elderly and disabled or
    no freedom pass.

    Like

  19. “as for alexs demand that conditions muxst be placed on linsay german first. what about placing some conditions on support for livings tone. how about dro;p support for a police shoot to kill polcy and stop scabbing on workers.”

    You’re stating the blindingly obvious Adam.
    We all know what Livingston said and did, but it’s not the point.

    The question is, would allowing a victory for the Tories further the interests of the majority of people in London?

    No it wouldn’t. It would mean a decisive shift to the right in London politics. Most people in London can see that. Why can’t you?

    In fact, a socialist campaign that took up the criticisms of Livingstone, would precisely put those conditions on supporting him and could be used to point out the extremely restrictive conditions under which the GLA operates.

    But it should also make clear that we don’t want Livingstone to replaced by an out and out right-winger.
    In fact, on many issues, we want to pull him into a united front.

    Like

  20. The notion that we should not stand against someone who has adopted positions way to the right of even the old Labour left (which he used to be a prominant member of) on the basis that a victory for the Tory Boris would mark a further shift to the right, represents a clear shift to the right in political terms.

    It also represents a trojan horse in wider politics given that the Tories are exploiting Gordon Brown’s troubles to the hilt as the opinion columns show. The fact that Ken Livingstone has a reasonable record on identity politics notwithstanding. Its also neccessary to point out that politics is not just about formal politics but their actions. In the same way that it is discreditable for people on the left to argue that because Ian Blair has a formally multi-culturalist position we should ignore his record on shoot-to-kill, smearing and harrassment of victims, and systematic cover-ups, its also discreditable to argue that it is ‘ultra left’ to object to Ken Livingstone’s support for Privatisation and support for Ian Blair.

    It does seem pretty clear evidence that, beyond both the nasty personalised abuse, and beyond questions about ‘SWP methodology’ there are indeed more political questions about the future direction of Respect which underlie this dispute. I think there may be a temptation to move beyond a project concerned to pull people away from Labourism (this has proved difficult) towards fudging the difference and attempting to recreate some kind of Labour Leftism without Labour.

    In the abstract I would not have a problem with this if it was possible. Its not possible because, aside from very honourable exceptions, the Labour left, such as it exists, is way to the right of what it used to be, and if anything even more entrenched in its commitment to remaining inside the Labour Party then it used to be. This is in marked contrast to the situation on the Trade Union front.

    Whilst initially I was tempted to see the argument about Livingstone purely in terms of hostility to a candidate who happened to be in the SWP, today I think there is rather more to it then that. Its also true that I was quite surprised by Galloway’s withdrawel, thinking it had something to do with a desire not to create a split with the other major component of the leadership of RR. Again, whilst this may have been a factor, I think there is a broader logic at work here.

    Perhaps its encapsulated in Andy’s, at first sight rather bonkers slogan, ‘in ten years we replace Labour’. What at first sight might seem bonkers may represent a strategy designed in the end to create broader alliances which are envisaged in terms of a realignment within as much as without the Labour Party. The tragedy in different ways of many of the prominant personalities in RR is that their natural home, the Labour left, no longer exists.

    We may be at the beginning of an attempt to recreate this mileau by adapting to forces (such as Livingstone) way to the right of it. Where this road leads is as yet unclear, but I doubt very much that the ultimate destination will be anywhere were many on both sides of the dispute would feel very comfortable. I am increasingly struck by perhaps only formal parrallels with the old Marxism Today project.

    Like

  21. Sorry, not opinion colomns but opinion polls.

    Like

  22. I have to say, I can’t see what all the fuss is about: it is an STV election. This gives those of us to the left of Labour an opportunity to make propaganda and build our organisations, without having to face down accusations about letting the right in. I agree with the person that standing a left wing candidate will increase the turn-out and probably increase the vote for Livingstone in the second round. I’m and SR supporter, but I would support Lyndsey German’s candidacy, if it is acknowledged that she was fairly selected, and would even possibly do so otherwise. We still have to work with the SWP and will someday again be in a “broad party” with them.

    Like

  23. JOhn

    For you and the SWP, the project of Respect and the SA before it may have been “pull people away from Labourism”, but both the SA and Respect have also included many more who wanted to defend labourism from New Labour.

    Now in fact (apologoes to Rosa Lichenstein, here is the negation of the negation in play!!) the process of defending Labourism from New Labour includes within it the opportunity to transcend labourism. A broad social-democratic party within which there is the possibility of a class struggle left being hegemonic is very different from Old labour.

    The opportunity is to reconstitute labour without its openly pro-business right wing, and because the social and economic roots of labourism still exist, this is feasible. But the tipping point would be where the some major unions could conside that a left of labour alternative would articulate their interests better than Labour does.

    You make a mistake to see the labour left in terms of those people who are both left wing and actually party members. There are thousands who are attracted to left social democratic politics, bit who are no longer in the party, and if they are under 30 may never even have though about the Labour Party as ever progressive. The interesing contrast is that 15 million self-desribe themselves as Labour voters but in the same opinion poll 5 million of that 15 million say they will not vote labour.

    We are a long way from where we ant to be, but the plates are moving slowly. The conservative control culture of the SWP linked to your schematic inflexible politics really was an obstacle. Your concept of the United Front of a Specil Type, and John Rees personification of that relationship between the SWP and Respect is a different politicall project, and one that you have undertheorised – and as such you simply failed to understand waht was going on (for example Callinicos’s asinine remark that the problem is “reformists returning to type”.

    On Ken- the question of whether or not there is a direct candidate is a subordinate one for me. The main question is that the main thrust of any political intervention has to be about defending the progressive aspects of ivingston’s regime from the Boris onslaught.

    So if there is a left candidate, the emphasis should be on criticising Boris and arguing forcibly for the second preference. Whether or not I could support a left challnage to Ken qould therefor edepend upon whether the campaign was an ultra-left one or not. It would be possiible to envisage a campign that wasn’t ultra left, but that doesn’t seem to be the mood of the SWP at present.

    There is absolutly nothing wrong with criticising Ken’s attitude to privatisation, his attacks on the RMT and his defence of Ian Blair. It is only ulra left of those left criticisms to be the main thrust of a left campaign.

    On my slight bonkersness. Recall that I was referring to Die Linke with their 73 MPs in Germany. Who have sufficient critical mas, and in politicall terms do occupy the sapce the SPD used to fill.

    For various historcial reasons the experience of Die Linke is not reproducable in England, but the political space Die Linke occupies does exist, and that is the space we need to fill.

    I have been saying all along, everyone from Jon Cruddas leftwards needs to be part of realligning the left.

    You mention Marxism Today – yeah, worth going back and reading some of that stuff from today’s perspepctive, but it was twenty years ago. But Unlike Marxism Today, the Respect Renewal project is not liquidationist, it is a party building project.

    Like

  24. Well we’ll have to see Andy. You are quite right to talk about a left of labourish position being the mean of many of those most desperate for some sort of alternative to Brown/Blairism, and not to reduce this to actual members of the actually existing Labour Left. You underestimate though the difficulties in getting serious forces to commit to actually breaking organisationally and electorally from Labour. I believe that some imagine that with the SWP gone this will be much easier. I don’t agree. Its not the pro’s and con’s of working with the SWP that are central to this shift in my view though.

    Mark P’s earlier formulation that the right wards drift of Labour has left the entire political field once occupied by Social Democracy up for grabs epitomises for me the underestimation of this difficulty and the political mistakes that might flow from it. I don’t agree that the basis of a left challenge to Livingstone would be about defending his ‘regime’, and believe that the dangers of this logic are as I described. Ken Livingstone is way to the right of what the old Labour left was, but it is no doubt still possible to describe his project as ‘social democratic’ in the broadest sense (better then the old social democracy in terms of aspects of the old identity politics (but not on police repression), a good deal worse in terms of attitudes to privatisation, trades unions. Outside the context of Brown and Blair his political practice would appear much more right wing.

    Aside from my own no doubt idiotic comments, I don’t really understand your assumptions about the ‘ultra leftism’ of the SWP with respect to a left challenge to Ken Livingstone (which you don’t appear to be ruling out in principle).

    Like

  25. This gives those of us to the left of Labour an opportunity to make propaganda and build our organisations, without having to face down accusations about letting the right in

    I think it’s a tactical question. If the argument for a RESPECT vote was “vote for the only socialist candidate”, for example, there would be a real danger of people taking that advice and not giving anyone their second preference. Similarly, if the campaign focused on denouncing Livingstone as a traitor to the Left, it’s hard to imagine that anyone motivated enough to give preference 1 to RESPECT would be inclined to give Livingstone preference 2. The campaign needs to acknowledge that the winner will be either Boris or Ken, and that it needs to be the latter rather than the former (and then attack him as a scabby cop-loving sellout).

    There was a famous case in Italy in the 1970s, of a liberal right-wing columnist who’d spent years denouncing the Christian Democrats, but found when push came to shove that he couldn’t stand the thought of the Communists winning: his election-day column was headed “Hold your nose and vote Christian Democrat”. Somehow or other, Lindsey German needs to run on a platform of “Vote RESPECT, but then hold your nose and give Ken your second preference”. Mayor of London is just too big a prize for the Tories for the Left to mess about.

    Like

  26. yeah but its tricky. would it be ultra left to run on the basis of ‘sack blair, stop privatisation, but keep the Boris the Bigot out!’?

    I don’t think it would (I think arguments suggesting that its ‘ultra left’ or ‘sectarian’ to call for the sacking of Blair represent a misuse of the terms ‘ultra left’ and ‘sectarian’: again I can’t help but be reminded of Beatrix Campbell regarding all talk of trade unionism as part of a ‘deeply sectarian project’).

    I am, for my sins, a member of ‘but Boris is a fucking Tory’ on facebook, and I have no problems arguing against a vote for him. But this is not the same as gilding the lily in terms of arguments which are important for everyone who travels on the tube, and everyone who is worried about the vicious abuse of police powers which Ian Blair epitomises (in many ways he is a symbol of Blairite repression of Muslims in London: I reach for the sick bag every time I see his loathsome lying face on TV and I can’t be the only one).

    To provide a left platform demanding the end of his foul regime is surely a responsibility for Socialists. Opposing this kind of thing cannot be left to the right.

    Like

  27. would it be ultra left to run on the basis of ’sack blair, stop privatisation, but keep the Boris the Bigot out!’?

    I don’t think it would

    No, nor me.

    Like

  28. To be clear

    I would support a left candidate, and I would support that candidate being Lindsey german.

    BUT only in the terms of a strategic recognition of defending the positive aspects of Livingston, arguing strongly for a second preference for him, and only in that context making the criticisms about Ian Blair, Tube privatisation, etc.

    Like

  29. I had an ulterior motive in posting this item and by accident or insight Johng has raised the issue that I think is most significant. He wrote:

    “We may be at the beginning of an attempt to recreate this mileau (sic – the Labour Left) by adapting to forces (such as Livingstone) way to the right of it.

    My hunch is that some of the first significant disagreements that we will see in RR will be around the degree of support for Livingstone and how this affects the organisation’s future strategic orientation. The reservations that many Respect supporters have about him are shared by some on the Labour left. But it is the ongoing relationship with the not terribly left of Labour that we have to get right. This is especially true in the unions where we should be reaching out to CWU activists who organised against the deal rather than the sections of the leadership who supported it. Both of these camps include Labour members.

    While I agree with Andy that the space to the left of Labour will not, in the near future, be filled by any revolutionary project, we also need to be clear that it needs to develop a programme which is more far reaching than simply opposition to war and privatisation. It needs to have a clear class struggle, socialist content and this is not something that Labourism has traditionally burdened itself with.

    If tomorrow’s weather is as forecast I will write a separate post on this and will collate some of today’s discussion into it.

    It’s good to see that the tone has improved. Let’s keep it that way!

    Like

  30. What was that slogan the SWP constantly repeated until very recently?

    Oh yeah: “March seperately, strike together”

    Like

  31. As far as I know thats still the slogan.

    Like

  32. I want to look again at the phrase George Galloway used:

    “That is one of the reasons I will be vigorously campaigning against Boris the Buffoon in the GLA elections.”

    It’s a curiously awkward phrase to use, if you want to support a particular candidate. He could have said “…..campaigning FOR Ken Livingstone.”

    Like

  33. Before Respect members get too self righteous about Livingstone’s endorsement of the “shoot to kill” policy it’s worth remembering that Galloway, then the head honcho of the single undivided unity coalition, had exactly the same position. In response to Gavin Essler on Newsnight shortly after July 7th he said it was pointless talking to suicide bombers and when prodded on what was to be done he replied “Shoot them” with a wave of the hand.

    I don’t remember the anyone in the SWP kicking up a fuss at the time (but I do remember the fact that they refused to condemn the slaughter of 52 commuters, a position that will no doubt engraciate them with the huddled masses of London).

    Personally, it makes me puke how the SWP have used the death of de Menezes in such a crude and propagandist way. I remember the shambolic and sensationalist “vigil” they organised as the “Lambeth STWC” just three days after he was gunned down.

    Fu##ing disgusting ####, I wouldn’t vote for their candidate even if there were a third preference option and I expect neither would a great deal of Londoners. But hey, who knows, she may just pick up enough votes to let a racist tory become mayor if the election’s closely fought enough. F##king role on comrades.

    Like

  34. What planet is John G living on? I take it he doesn’t live in London, or else he wouldn’t be under the impression that tube users are terrified of be shot to death by cops. Again hysterical nonsense (I can see from my post above that the word I’d prefer to use would not be tolerated here – fair enough I’ll respect the rule even though it strikes me as a little prissy). If anything Londoners are a little more worried about being blasted to bits by the suicide murders John’s sect treat with kid gloves.

    It’s precisely the ideological prism John G and his fellow SWPers see the world through that precludes them from making any headway in the mayoral elections.

    I’m with Livingstone!

    Like

  35. For those of us who’ve been obsessed with these on-line discussions this is a bit of archive trivia:

    http://leninology.blogspot.com/2004/02/lenin-vs-mcleod-round-two.html

    Like

  36. “In response to Gavin Essler on Newsnight shortly after July 7th he said it was pointless talking to suicide bombers and when prodded on what was to be done he replied “Shoot them” with a wave of the hand.”

    Slightly different, don’t you think? He had a position that if you had someone about to set a bomb off that was strapped to them or in a bag worn by them, you’ve only got one option to stop it.

    As for your “puking” about the SWP’s vigil outside Stockwell, two things: 1) It was crowded and angry. I was there, as were other tube workers cos, y’know, we’d just been bombed and the driver of the train that de Menezes was on had a gun put to his head by the police, and a Muslim member of staff at Bethnal Green station had been knocked to the ground and told by police that he was going to be killed (they called him a “Muslim dog” and almost suffocated him). 2) The vigil was the right thing to do, and I actually don’t really know who organised it – it was chaotic with some strange speakers, but it was necessary to mark what had happened in some way.

    If it was the SWP that organised it, the SWP did the right thing. Maybe it could’ve been done better, but that’s not really your point is it?

    And the person who runs the de Menezes campaign isn’t exactly a friend of the SWP, so I dunno what your whole “puking” issue is, except a dull bit of trolling. Ditto with your “condemnation” issue. Sorry the SWP wasn’t pure enough for you. I agreed with its stand then, and I still do.

    Like

  37. Liam wrote:
    ‘Targets are the curse of modern working life and it’s not unknown for figures and statistics to be manipulated to prove that the damned things have been met. Can anyone provide any evidence of a significant number of instances where this “social” housing “target” has been met? The more general impression is that Livingstone and New Labour are more favourably disposed towards the filthy rich than they are to the people who live in squalid, overcrowded, overpriced accommodation.’

    That’s because Liam’s view is that, an impression, purely unrelated to the reality of politics in London, which is that there is a big divide between Livingstone and the Tories on this issue which is in itself a reason to vote for Livingstone, quite apart from his other self-evidently progressive politics and his equally self-evident superiority over Boris Johnson.

    There will be a big fight led by Johnson and the right wing press to oust Livingstone because they hate policies like the pressure for more affordable housing, his opposition to racism, his tough stand against Islamophobia, his opposition to the war, to new nuclear weapons and nuclear power, his big public transport subsidy and proposal to tax 4x4s.

    Livingstone introduced a fifty per cent affordable housing target in London following his first election. This requires boroughs – many of who strongly do not wish to achieve such high levels of affordable housing – to strive to get the most out of each development. He backs this up with his own planning powers and is now being devolved a significant housing budget to enforce this. It is a contrast to the previously lower targets and also to the Tories’ record.

    This is why Tory boroughs are so desperate to get Boris Johnson elected so that the pressure is taken off them. Far from there being no evidence that this works, it is obvious that more pressure for more affordable housing backed up by the force of law under the planning framework introduced by Livingstone will lead to more affordable homes than when there is less pressure (as proposed by Johnson).

    Helpfully, some of the facts and figures on this can be found on Ken’s own website:
    http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=13712

    Here’s an example of exactly how the pressure for more affordable homes works:
    http://www.london.gov.uk/view_press_release.jsp?releaseid=1603

    Whilst it may be the case that some confused parts of the left cannot choose between Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone and therefore cannot place themselves on the vast majority of Londoners who would suffer from Tory policies being imposed on London, Londoners have no such luxury. Thus George Galloway is quite right to say he will be vigorously campaigning against Boris Johnson next May.

    A good summary of this particular issue – housing – and the clear difference in the election can be found here on the Ken supporters’ blog, which also has a good demolition of Johnson’s recent hypocritical ramblings on the radio.
    http://www.londonforken.co.uk/?p=24

    Like

  38. Ellis voting for KL because he’s not as bad as a Tory isn’t really that motivating an option. It’s a variant on the argument used in the US that it’s better to vote Democrat because they are not as bad as the Republicans.

    This attitude has been a barrier to the growth of a socialist party over there. Thinking through the issues around opposing a not terribly radical Labour mayor is useful fo help clarify Respect’s relations with the Labour and non-Labour left. I think that where we fundamentally might disagree is on whether or not it is necessary and possible to build a mass alternative to Labourism.

    Like

  39. left/right issue anyone? perhaps a useful debate to be had in the first issue of RRs new newspaper?

    Like

  40. I think we’re all aware there’s a left and a right in RR – I know I’ve been saying so for some time.

    Like

  41. Exactly Phil,

    i) the axis of any left/right disagreement falls within RR, not between RR and SWP.

    ii) disagreement and debate is healthy.

    Like

  42. Just one thing about city and east- for Respect to beat labour there you would need the BNP to stand to takevotes from labour, as they usually do, and especially in Barking. However, to the best of my knowledge- they are only fighting the mayoral and list seats- and not the constituency- as they did in 2004

    Like

Leave a reply to Andy Newman Cancel reply

Trending