14.01.1999

Livingstone for mayor?

Party notes

Speaking on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party at the January 5 United Socialists meeting (see report, front page), Pat Stack described the way that the left found out about the possible candidacy of Paul Foot for London mayor as “not ideal”, even “unfortunate”.

Quite true. Socialists and revolutionaries first learned of this when comrade Foot was presented as the “socialist candidate” - in the pages of The Guardian (November 24 1998). This particularly rankled with those involved in discussions with the SWP within United Socialists to create a united left platform for the European elections this year. In a healthy move, SWP comrades have now underlined their commitment to a democratic process, and that they are open to suggestion and arguments from other organisations.

So what should be our approach to this important round of elections?

First, there is Livingstone. In principle, there is absolutely nothing wrong with supporting his right to stand. This would be a blow against the Blairite stranglehold over the Labour Party, something which could create fluidity. With this in mind, it is hard to understand the article from Mark Osborn of the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty in last week’s paper.

Mark ticks off comrades from Workers Fight, implying that AWL could not support any possible Livingstone candidacy. He suggests that “the left must make honest, public balance sheets of it actions, policies, etc” (Weekly Worker January 7). This accounting would presumably include criticism of those who advocated backing for Blair’s party in 1996 - including a vote to Livingstone, of course - as a prelude to a ‘crisis of expectations’, comrade Osborn?

Of course, supporting Livingstone’s right to stand should in no way equate with unconditional backing for him as mayor. Under present conditions, he does not represent any sort of mass movement, but feeds off inarticulate left sentiment in society itself. More than that, Livingstone is an unprincipled careerist. He is not fighting to become London mayor to spark the working class into life, but to further his own ambitions. His real priority is a government post - perhaps as a junior minister of transport.

The SWP has suggested that it will unconditionally support the man in the (unlikely) event that he stands, “because [ordinary people] see him as a leftwing opponent of Blair’s pro-business policies” (Socialist Worker November 28 1998). Paul Foot suggests that he is “100% behind Ken, but if he is not selected … then there should be a socialist candidate” (The Guardian November 24 1998).

Surely the correct position - aside from whatever tactical support is offered to Livingstone in his tussle with Blair - is ensuring that there will be a socialist candidate. The notion that a Ken Livingstone standing as the official Blairite candidate would have anything to with ‘socialism’ is mere wishful thinking (if he broke with Labour in order to stand, it would be a different story). Thus, any candidate - Livingstone, Foot or anyone else - must be evaluated politically.

Which brings us back to Paul Foot. At the moment, his is the only name in the hat. He is a reasonably well known political figure, associated with socialist opposition to Blair’s Labour. He certainly has a long record of principled campaigning. He could be an effective unity candidate.

However, London comrades - including SWP members themselves - should have the right to question the candidate. A minimum platform should be negotiated that Paul Foot or any other candidate must defend. This can act as the unifying element in a joint campaign. It should go without saying that any component part of such a bloc - including comrade Foot and the SWP - must be free to produce their own, supplementary or critical propaganda alongside such a minimum platform. As we have learned from our practical work in the London Socialist Alliance and in the current by-election contest in Hackney, this is a precondition for principled unity.

Lastly, our candidate must be adopted democratically - in stark contrast to squalid machinations in Blair’s party, of course. We have already suggested that this should take the form of an open meeting of the entire London left. The numerical strength of the SWP may appear to make the result a foregone conclusion. But this is not the point. The exemplary nature of such an approach - open, mass and democratic - should not be underestimated.

Mark Fischer
national organiser