* Great Britain
Livingstone's historic gamble
IN the 1980s and 1990s Great Britain became notorious as a laboratory for free market social experimentation. In many ways the election of Tony Blair's
LABOUR Left MP. Ken Livingstone's decision to stand as an independent candidate against new Labour in the first ever elections for
Mayor of London was a historic moment - even more so since it is almost certain that he will win the election on May 4. In an opinion poll for the Guardian newspaper on March 6, Livingstone had the support of 68% of Londoners with new Labour rival Frank Dobson trailing with only 13%. While other subsequent polls have reduced the gap, his lead remains overwhelming.
VERONICA FAGAN
IVINGSTONE'S massive support is partly based on the record of the
/ Greater London Council (GLC)
which he ran from 1981-1986 until it was abolished by Conservative (Tory) Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher. Even people who don't remember the GLC look to him because Thatcher hated his administration so much.
Growing disquiet
Today Livingstone is a symbol for increasing numbers of people becoming disillusioned with new Labour. Less than three years after the General Election in which Tony Blair was elected Prime
Minister in a landslide victory, there is growing disquiet amongst Labour's traditional supporters over the government's constant attacks on working people. This base was both increased and incensed by the outrageous fix in the voting system which denied Livingstone the Labour nomination. Livingstone is also appealing to a broader audience - opinion polls show
48% of Tories in London and 70% of
Liberal Democrats will support him along with 75% of Labour voters.
Livingstone has always had a populist edge but this has become increasingly prominent. In an almost post-modern framework, he has sought to present himself as a moderniser of the left, to match
Blair's modernising on the right. He has argued he is "the best man for the job"
rather than someone who disagrees with new Labour on a principled basis.
Livingstone's determination to become
2 International Viewpoint #320 April 2000
Mayor has been a nightmare for Tony Blair for months. But the greatest disaster of all for new Labour would have been for Livingstone to have been the official Labour candidate. This is why the new Labour leadership stitched up the electoral system to prevent his selection. Blair gambled that Livingstone would not respond when the Labour nomination was stolen from him by standing as an independent as he had 'promised" many times in the past.
Opinion polls had made clear that most Livingstone's support amongst trade unionists and Labour party members would stand firm if he stood independently. If Livingstone had sought to maximise his challenge, he would have not only have stood himself but organised a slate of supporters in the Labour movement to stand alongside him as candidates for the Greater London Assembly (GLA).
### Danger of isolation
This Assembly is being elected at the same time as the Mayor. While the Mayor has more power than anyone else in the new set up, key proposals, including the budget, could be blocked by the Assembly if the Mayor is completely isolated. It would have been easy for Livingstone to put together a slate of prominent trade unionists, campaigners and figures from the Labour left to stand on socialist policies for the Assembly and take seats.
Such a development would have been welcomed by the London Socialist Alliance (LSA), an unprecedented alliance of the left involving all the major far left
New Labour government has seemed to accelerate the stampede to the right.
However, in recent months there have been hopeful signs of a revival of the
British left. In this month's
International Viewpoint we focus on the significance of
Ken Livingstone's campaign to become mayor of London, the emergence of a new alliance on the British far left and the state of
Britain's Health Service after 20 years of neoliberal attacks. * groups and key independents which is standing a slate for the Assembly and supporting Livingstone for mayor. The LSA wanted to be part of any such Livingstone slate. This would have had a far greater impact than the modest success the LSA itself hopes for.
### Different overtures
Instead Livingstone has stood alone and made different overtures to different main stream political parties. At different times he has suggested support for the new Labour assembly slate and for the Green Party slate. On April 10 he stated that he intended to appoint 4 different deputies during his term of office - one from each of the (sic) major parties. He lists Labour, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Green. Clearly many Livingstone supporters will be furious about this consolidation of his populism - their protests need to be loud and clear.
Livingstone's declaration followed the result of an internal Labour party ballot for the selection of their candidate for the position. Livingstone won the overwhelming majority of the votes cast in the ballot - 74,000 to 24,000. Despite this his major rival, Frank Dobson, who was supported
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
by the Blair leadership of the party, formally won the nomination by a margin of 3%.
This outrage was possible because the ballot was conducted through an Electoral College comprising of three sections - one of individual party members, one of affiliated trade unions affiliated and one of MPs, MEPs and candidates for the Greater London Assembly. Each of these sections had the same weight in deciding the outcome which meant that the vote of a single MP was equal to the vote of 1,000 individual members of the Labour Party!
The Labour leadership thought long and hard before they decided the precise system under which votes would be cast. For months they stated that every individual would have a vote - but the strong speculation was that Livingstone would be excluded. Blair finally decided that he was not sure he could contain the resulting backlash - so instead he resorted to a new voting system.
Blair had used Electoral Colleges before but each of them has been precisely set up to deliver the result the leadership needed. For example the college that was used to elect new Labour placeman Alun Michael to the leadership of the new Welsh Assembly gave more weight to the trade unions than the London model - because London trade unions are less likely to deliver for Blair.
In the mayoral selection a number of unions which would have backed Livingstone were completely excluded from the vote by manouevres over qualifying dates. Other organisations were given votes completely disproportionate to their real size - and then decided to support Dobson without any democratic decision-making process.
### Narrow victory
Despite all of these stitch-ups, the Blairites were only able to deliver a narrow victory for their candidate. The formal result has no legitimacy not only in the eyes of most who voted for Livingstone but more generally.
Livingstone was correct to capitalise on this by calling, in the first days after the result, for Dobson to stand down and that he becomes the official Labour candidate. But quicker than he predicted supporters became frustrated that he did not declare he would stand as an independent. It rapidly became clear to media conscious
Livingstone that there would not be a better moment to act.
But now Livingstone is acting as a block on a deeper development to the left. He is doing nothing to organise those who i repete the odon support him - which will result in a wave of people who cannot yet be won to a project like the London Socialist Alliance drifting out of politics. His campaign consists of massive and expensive posters and media appearances.
Despite Livingstone's appeals, it is clear that there has been a steady stream of people leaving new Labour, frustrated by the fact that Blair has continued the Tory offensive in other guises. Others had hung on by the skin of their teeth only to vote for him. Some now cannot take any more and have torn up their party cards in disgust.
### Illusions remain
Another layer are following Livingstone's call - privately supporting him but attempting to keep their heads down. Many of them, like Livingstone himself, have illusions in what can be retrieved by the left in the Labour Party. The objective effect of their failure to stick their necks out will be to understate not only the basis of support for Livingstone but of opposition to Blair's neo-liberal policies.
Others are openly supporting him and calling on others to do likewise but will wait for the hierarchy to take action against them. Blair and his cronies will pay some price for this. 87% of those responding to an opinion poll on March 6 said that it would be unfair for those who supported Livingstone to be expelled from the Labour Party. In response the Labour leadership have suggested that so long as people are not too blatant they will not take action to throw them out.
But Livingstone's intervention has severely limited the potential size of this layer. Behind his stance lies a profound underestimation of Blairism and what it has achieved in terms of the transformation of the Labour Party. This view is shared by significant sections of the Labour left and similarly disorients them. The reality is that Blair and his cronies have a coherent project to transform the Labour Party from a bourgeois workers' party into a party similar to the US Democratic Party. They are well on the way to achieving this aim.
There have been two key aspects of these changes.
Contents Great Britain 2 Livingstone's gamble • Veronica Fagan 6 Democratic socialism vs 19th century liberalism • Ken Livingstone MP 7 New unity on left Alan Thornett 11 The Service Thatcher couldn't kill • John Lister Africa 16 Mozambique - Agony continues • Eric Toussaint Latin America 17 Ecuador - No road but the struggle• Juan Adolfo Montenegro plus USFI statement on freeing of Pinochet 20 Declaration of Sao Paulo Forum • Extracts Asia 21 China: An incurable disease • Zhang Kai 22 Pakistan: Labour Party raided • Farooq Sulehria 36 Making Asia nuclear-free • Dhaka conference Europe 23 Euskadi - A slap in the face of reason • José Ramon Castanos "Troglo" plus 4th declaration of the Lizarra-Garazi forum 25 Italy - A new milestone • Livio Maitain 27 Portugal - A new left • Francois Vercammen 29 Austria - The resistible rise of Jorg Haider • Boris Jezek 33 Germany - Crisis in the CDU • Paul Kleiser International Viewpoint #320 April 2000 3
* Great Britain
At the level of political policy they have developed a new view of the state as an enabling state rather than one that directly provides services itself. This is not only a break with the whole of the postwar Welfare State - with health, education, housing, social security, pensions etc provided through taxation - but with earlier Labour Party programmes and indeed with elements of Liberalism which were and are in favour of at least some social provision.
New Labour is beginning to implement a model whereby services are provided through private finance and the role of the state is reduced to one of management. This mammoth shift in ideology is by no means fully carried through in practice. It is however clear that if it is to be halted the key forces will be from the trade unions and service users.
This political trajectory is not unique to new Labour but is to a greater or lesser extent shared by the whole of European Social Democracy today. More importantly, whatever the particular ideological complexion of any of these leaderships, they are bound in practice to move in this direction given the terms of the Maastricht Treaty and the subsequent Stability Pact.
### Marginalised left
But the particular way this plays itself through has is unique to each country. The marginalisation of the left in the Labour Party and the undermining of its ability to effectively object to these moves is compounded by crucial changes in the party structures which have taken place since Blair was elected leader of the Labour Party. While the last (probably) tranche of changes has not yet gone through, it is excluded that they can be stopped given the relationship of forces in the Labour Party. This has created a situation where even if the left has a majority on a particular question Blair can ignore it. Indeed this is exactly what happened in the mayoral ballot itself.
Livingstone fails to take on board the depth of this process and certainly does not support the project of beginning to construct a political alternative to the left of Labour. This however is the only logical conclusion of a correct analysis of Blairism - for both reformists and revolutionaries. But despite his intentions, Livingstone's declaration and candidacy will lead to a more profound debate about the alternatives to new Labour - a debate 4 International Viewpoint #320 April 2000 that will involve wider layers than could be reached by the existing far left.
As far as policies are concerned Livingstone has argued that the key point of disagreement with new Labour is the question of tube privatisation. He has gone out of his way to stress his compliance with the new Labour leadership on other issues. He has stressed a friendly attitude to business and trumpeted polls such as that in November 1999 which showed 55% of the London Chamber of Commerce saying that he would be a good ambassador for London as opposed to 32% for Dobson.
### Transport central
Of course Ken Livingstone is right to place the question of public transport at the centre of his campaign. The failure to make serious investment into the capital's transport infrastructure has created a situation of daily chaos for the thousands who rely on it to get to work - and more chillingly been responsible for a number of health and safety disasters in which people have been killed.
The likely result of privatisation was brought home even more forcefully in the wake of the Paddington train crash of October 6, 1999 in which 31 people died. The rail system had already been privatised and fragmented into dozens of different companies.
There was a massive public revulsion against privatisation that was clearly seen as the central factor in this outrage. Main news bulletins ran stories in favour of renationalising the railways and Livingstone was able to intervene directly - by speaking at a national demonstration in support of rail safety on November 6, 1999 - as well as indirectly into this debate.
But to recognise the centrality of public transport is not at all the same thing as saying that the government is right on everything else. The massive opposition to tube privatisation could be generalised into a campaign against all privatisation if Livingstone took a lead
On this and other issues, such as police and state racism or ecological questions, Livingstone doesn't disagree with most of the points raised by socialists. In other contexts, he has argued for similar policies himself but he focuses exclusively on transport - in order to minimise the disagreements between himself and the new Labour leadership.
He does play to particular audiences - so for example in interviews with music papers has stressed support for the legalisation of some drugs and opposition to the World Bank and IMF - which has resulted in another wave of media backlash. But this takes place at the same time as his greatest sell out - that he will have a Tory
Livingstone first came to prominence as Labour leader of the Greater London Council from May 1981 until its abolition by Margaret Thatcher in May 1986. He was a key part of a wider left current in local government which introduced a number of progressive policies and measures which had never been tried out in Britain
These included setting up of committees to look at the specific needs of women, of black people, of lesbian and gay men and of people with disabilities. While similar moves were being made by other left London authorities London, there was an important different about the London-wide GLC - it had more money. This meant that a whole number of campaigning groups as well as other community organisations received funding for the first time in their existence - a legacy that still delivers a bedrock of support for Livingstone today.
### Sinn Fein meetings
The GLC was innovative in other areas too. For example, Livingstone met with Gerry Adams and other Sinn Fein leaders long before the "peace process" in the north of Ireland was dreamt of. These and other radical policies led to Livingstone's administration being reviled by the media.
This local government left was the most visible part of the broader Labour left under the leadership of Tony Benn. This current had developed under right wing Labour governments and initially focused on internal party reform - making a whole series of processes more democratic and transparent. The current attacks on democracy in the Labour Party have resulted in a more centralised, less democratic system than that which the Bennites campaigned
Thatcher, leader Conservative Party, was elected as Prime Minister in 1979 replacing a right-wing Labour leader James Callaghan. She was determined to destroy the trade unions especially the traditionally militant National Union of Mineworkers led by
The crumbling state of London's underground rail system has become a major political issue
Arthur Scargill. She embarked on a massive programme of closure of mines which resulted in the momentous miner's strike of 1984. The Labour left was an important component of the movement against pit closures and like the trade union movement suffered significantly from its defeat.
Thatcher's platform also included direct attacks on local government. These measures included rate capping - which restricted council's ability to raise finance through progressive taxation as well as cuts in central government subsidies.
These attacks were motivated on an economic basis, but were further fuelled by the fact that the Labour left was growing in strength in local government. Livingstone together with the rest of left initially resisted these moves and mobilised against them in concert with local authority trade unions and service users but in the end they backed down.
Failure to defy law
With the exception of two councils, they failed to defy the government by setting an illegal rate which was the only tactic open to them to continue the mobilisations and defend jobs and services. This failure to defy the law, together with the defeat of the miner's strike, was a crucial turning point and led to the disorientation and decline of the Labour left. Thatcher was able to go onto further assaults on local government most notably though the highly regressive poll tax that was defeated by a mass movement based mainly outside the traditional labour movement.
- Fares Fair campaign
Livingstone's own failure to defy the law was prefigured in the 1981 campaign for which he is best remembered at the GLC - Fares Fair. The plan was to persuade more people to use public transport -rather than private cars - by cutting fares by 32%. Similar policies of at least freezing fares were being carried out in most major cities which were controlled by the left at the time. The cost of Fares Fair fell on London businesses which paid 61% of the London rates. But they still ended up subsidising London Transport less than their counterparts in Paris under its rightwing Gaullist Mayor, Jacques Chirac.
But this campaign had a number of weaknesses. Unlike the later rate-capping campaign, it did not actively involve the base of the transport trade unions, which obviously had an interest in its success. More importantly Livingstone backed down when the judge, Lord Denning ruled in November 1981 that it was illegal and this was upheld by the Law Lords, the highest court of appeal, in December. He initially argued for defiance but in the end put through a budget in February 1982 which accepted fares increases.
Despite all these weaknesses of the local government left, Thatcher's hatred for any centre of possible opposition led her to abolish the GLC in 1986 as promised in the 1983 Tory Party Manifesto. Ironically enough it was abolition of the GLC that led to an enhancement of Livingstone's reputation from the left. Of course the basis on which Blair and his lackeys criticise the GLC and Livingstone's period there is completely scurrilous. But at the same time being soft on the wrong positions taken could disorient the movement today.
### Opportunity
Livingstone's declaration has posed the greatest challenge that Blair has faced so far. While the Labour leadership is moving even further to the right on policy questions, anger is growing amongst their traditional supporters. The unprecedented unity of the left around the London Socialist Alliance is benefiting from this dynamic.
Livingstone can try to hold back the tide by calling on people to remain in the Labour Party, but this is not the direction from which the real challenge will come. This reality will become increasingly apparent whether or not Livingstone himself recognises it.
But his failure to do so will result in an opportunity for a more substantive step forward being lost. * International Viewpoint #320 April 2000 5
* Great Britain