RE-ELECT KEN - A REPLY TO ALAN THORNETT
by Andy Newman -1st February, 2008

There is a debate within Respect Renewal about the correct attitude towards the London mayoral elections. It is a strength of the pluralism of the organisation that informed discussion is preceding any final decision. Currently the consensus is leaning towards putting maximum effort into prioritising the re-election of Ken Livingstone. George Galloway MP and many other figures in Respect have expressed their strong opposition to other left candidates standing against Ken Livingstone for Mayor of London.

But a very critical article from Alan Thornett, a national council member of Respect Renewal, is arguing that Respect Renewal should back a credible left candidate against Ken Livingstone. It is believed that the SWP’s Lindsey German intends to stand.

Central to Alan’s argument is the fact that the electoral system is by Supplementary Vote system as he explains:

Fortunately the ballot for Mayor is by transferable vote, which makes this rather easy. With a transferable vote system the voter is able to cast first and second choice votes. The first can therefore be a political choice (the person you would most like to see elected) and the second can be used to stop the person you least want in the run-off between to two leading contenders. And since Livingstone is sure to be in the top two such an approach is fully applicable to this particular election. In fact giving Livingstone your first preference vote rather than your second would make no difference at all to the figures, you would still only be giving Livingstone one vote.

For example in the 2004 mayoral election Respect stood Lindsey German and called on its supporters to cast a second vote for Livingstone, and many of them did. The same should apply this time. If there is a credible left wing candidate put up against Livingstone we should vote for that candidate and cast a second vote for Livingstone.

But therein lies the rub. Let us look at the facts about the 2004 election. Firstly, the right wing challenge against Livingstone was of a different calibre. The War on Iraq was in recent memory with many voters, and Livingstone’s exemplary position on the war made him less vulnerable to a right wing smear campaign; secondly the Tories stood the most liberal candidate they could find, the clubbable and urbane Stephen Norris.

But it is not really true that Respect called for a second preference vote for Livingstone. The tiny circulation Socialist Worker quietly called for a second preference, and Lindsey German wrote a letter to the Guardian a couple of weeks before the poll, but the second preference was not part of the campaign.

Only a minority of Respect’s 61371 first preference voters actually did give a second preference for Livingstone in 2004. More to the point, Respect actually received a full 4% of second preference votes – 63294 people who had voted for eliminated candidates wasted their second preference on Respect, instead of voting for Ken. To put that in perspective, Livingstone lead over Norris in the second preferences was only 1.7%, 27959 votes.

Overall Respect received 125025 first and second preference votes, and Livingstone’s margin of victory was only 171084, out of 3455141 total effective votes.

So even in 2004, when the danger was no where near as great as today, Respect’s vote was within a hairsbreadth of determining the result.

In any event, it is not the hypothetical voting options but the nature of the campaign that matters. For the majority of progressive Londoners, and overwhelmingly among ethnic minorities, the big issue of this mayoral contest is to ensure the re-election of Livingstone. Do we stand with them, or against them?

Of course, it might be possible to imagine a possible hypothetical campaign where a left challenger made criticism of Boris Johnson the main plank of their campaigning and argued the second preference to Livingstone as essential and central. That is not the sort of campaign Lindsey German or the SWP are waging.

So what is good about Livingstone, and why should we defend him? There are other arguments as well, but here I will just give the reasons that Alan Thornett recognises, in his own words:

It’s true that Livingstone has opposed the war in Iraq and very consistently. He called on Londoners to attend the great February 2003 anti-war demonstration and he rejected calls that demonstrations should be banned when Bush visited London.

Livingstone has certainly done other things which we can support. His administration has worked on many progressive anti-racist initiatives. Livingstone warmly welcomed Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez to London, doing an “oil for expertise” deal with him. He has defended muti-culturalism extremely vigorously, he has welcomed migrants and defended asylum seekers. He defends Muslims against Islamaphobia. Some of his actions on the environment have also been important. The Livingstone team did a lot to ensure the financing and success of the London European Social Forum in 2004. And of course there is his opposition to the war and fierce attacks on George Bush.

So what should we make of Thornett’s criticisms of Livingstone?

Thornett’s weakest arguments are about transport. He argues: “London has the second most expensive transport system of any city in the world, outdone only by Moscow where the system is in the hands of gangsters. It is 26% more expensive than New York”

Alan doesn’t quote any research to back up these claims. My impression as someone who travels regularly with work is that the London tube system is expensive, but no more expensive than Oslo or Copenhagen, for example, and the zoning structure in London is fairer than the Copenhagen system.

But in terms of buses, Alan is clearly wrong. With an Oyster card a peak time bus fare in London is cheaper than off-peak fares in, for example, Birmingham or Bristol. As Alan himself concedes “free transport has been extended from school children to 16 and 17-year old students and this is a pro-working class reform. It’s also true that over-60s go free and that Oyster cards users (more regular users) pay less than the nominal rate.”

What is more, the still regulated public transport system in London is extensive enough to mean many working class Londoners don’t need a car. In the rest of the country unregulated bus companies have cut unprofitable services leaving big gaps in public transport coverage, and fares are more expensive than in London, and without the free travel for pensioners and young people.

Alan’s mistake is to take the transport debate out of its real political context, which is that compared to the rest of England Ken Livingstone has ensured that London has a better and cheaper public transport system; and that these real gains for working class Londoners are under attack by the very great danger of a Boris Johnson victory.

Thornett castigates Livingstone for supporting the police. Alan says: “Policing is not just about crime it’s about social control, and the class bias of the police is obvious.” To whom is it obvious? Obvious to the Trotskist left? Or obvious to the mass of voters? Is it even obvious to most working class people? Is it even obvious to most trade union activists?

Livingstone’s attitude to the police actually matches mainstream traditions of British labour movement politics: in the Labour Party and most trade unionists. Alan is making a mistake of judging politics by the standards of the far left, rather than from where popular political consciousness really is.

With regard to Thornett’s criticism of Livingstone’s economic policies, he is on slightly firmer round. But the fact that Livingstone supports a mixed economy merely puts him in the mainstream Labour tradition. If we look for example at Stuart Holland’s 1975 book “the Socialist Challenge”, we see the main economic theoretician of the Labour left at that time arguing for a mixed economy “harnessing the market power of leading manufacturing companies”.

Of course we may critique Livingstone’s policies, but we must also recognise the geographical and constitutional paradigm he operates in – and as Mayor of London there is a certain rationality in pursuing finance capital. Partly this is because of the inequity that England’s most prosperous region, and already one favoured by Westminster government, is also the only one with self governance. London is a major financial centre, and no longer has the infrastructure or skills base to support manufacturing on a broad scale. Indeed a socialist economic policy for England would seek to underheat London’s economy and transfer wealth to the regions - it is unrealistic to think that would be spearheaded by the Mayor of London!

Alan Thornett completely fails to make the case that Ken Livingstone is New Labour, rather than just old fashioned Labour. Yes, I admit that Livingstone sought to undermine strikes by the RMT on the underground. But Major Attlee’s government in 1945 used the army to break strikes, at the same time it made huge gains for working people in heath care, pensions and nationalisation.

Ken Livingstone may be imperfect, but remains a left social democrat with a broadly progressive administration. He is under attack from a concerted right wing campaign. In the context of the current election it would be strategically and tactically wrong to stand a left candidate against him.