24.02.2000

Judge Livingstone on his GLA slate

As we go to press, Ken Livingstone is set to announce that he will stand for the London mayoralty as an independent.

In the days before his narrow defeat by Frank Dobson in Blair's rigged election to choose the Labour candidate, Livingstone was careful to prepare the ground. On Friday of last week, referring to the refusal of the AEEU and the south London Coop to ballot their members before voting for Dobson, the late disenfranchisement of the GPMU union - added to the previous barring of the RMT and MSF - and the fact that Pauline Green had been allowed a vote, despite having retired as an MEP, Ken said: "If Frank depends on stolen votes, I will be asking the Labour Party to disallow the ballot."

The next day Livingstone was trying a different tack, this time calling on Dobson himself "in the interests of uniting the party" to step down, if - as by this time everyone knew would be the case - the former health secretary won by a small margin. Ken at this stage brushed aside questions of his standing as an independent, claiming to believe that this option would not arise: "Frank is a man of honour. I know he would stand down."

There was of course not the slightest chance that, after having gone to such extraordinary lengths to keep Livingstone out, Blair would undergo a miraculous, last-minute conversion (either to fair play or to the merits of 'Red Ken' as mayor) and scrap the ballot or allow Dobson to pull out. And Livingstone knew it. He was simply making clear what he was going to do.

Sunday's announcement of the results showed that Livingstone had won 54.9% of individual members' votes, as against 35.2% for Dobson. In the second of the three colleges Ken picked up 70.9% of the 'trade union and affiliates' section - almost every vote of Dobson's 26.9% was awarded to him without any kind of membership consultation. In the final - and decisive - college, Blair's man received the votes of 64 of the 75 individuals entitled to vote: 47 MPs backed Dobson, while eight voted for Livingstone, and the third candidate, Glenda Jackson, was supported only by herself. There was one abstention. Three out of the four MEPs voted for Dobson and one for Livingstone. All 14 of Blair's hand-picked constituency candidates for the Greater London Assembly delivered their master's wish. A total of 65 votes for Dobson translated as 86.4%.

As Livingstone pointed out, if you add up the votes of all those who were actually balloted, he received around 80,000, as opposed to just 25,000 for Dobson, who had to rely the block votes of union barons and the subservience of Blair's poodles to secure his election. No wonder the former leader of the Greater London Council described Dobson's victory as "tainted".

In another carefully calculated move, Ken announced he would be "listening to Londoners" over the next few days, before coming to a 'decision' on whether to go back on his word and stand for mayor despite his defeat. He had of course stated on innumerable occasions that there were "no circumstances under which I would stand as an independent". But I am sure, given a groundswell of opinion in his favour, he could be persuaded to 'change his mind'.

Acting on cue, the London Evening Standard and Carlton TV announced the results of two opinion polls soon after Dobson's victory. The Standard found that just 15% of those asked thought Dobson had "won fairly", while an overwhelming 53% declared the "rules rigged". In these circumstances 61% thought Livingstone should stand as an independent, with only 21% favouring his withdrawal. Exactly 50% stated they would vote for him if he did stand (including a third of Tories and a half of Liberal Democrats), in which case only 22% would back Dobson and 15% Steve Norris, the Tory candidate. Within hours the Carlton poll found that a massive 93% believed that Ken should stand.

Of course these results were based on relatively small samples, but they are surely indicative. Blair's interference has been so blatant that it has played right into Livingstone's hands. Thousands of Tories and Liberals can be expected to back him in the ballot box as the polls predict, in protest at Millbank's crude attempts to deny them the right to vote for whom they choose. The Standard splashed its front page with the headline, "Go for it, Ken" (February 21). Its editorial pages stressed how opposed to Livingstone's policies the paper's writers were, but stated that voters ought to insist on their right to have their say. Apart from the populism of this line, there is of course more than a suspicion that such pundits are hoping the Brent East MP's intervention will split the Labour vote just enough to let in Norris.

Blair's counterattack came, and will no doubt continue, on several fronts. It was revealed that he had summoned the man he had previously described as "a disaster" on the eve of the ballot results for confidential talks. No doubt he attempted to buy Livingstone off. But nothing he is prepared to offer Ken at this late stage will surely be enough to stop him standing: the stakes are now too high.

John Prescott, along with a couple of Livingstone's parliamentary supporters, weighed in with appeals for him to accept the result, and, while Blair declared that Labour had made "the right choice", Dobson himself was at pains to emphasise that he was "nobody's patsy": "I will take on anybody, including Tony, to get the best for London" (Evening Standard February 21). In concert with Blair's spin doctors, the Dobson camp stressed what an honest, straightforward fellow Frank was.

Meanwhile Jim Fitzpatrick, speaking for New Labour in London, issued dire warnings to anyone thinking of backing an independent challenge. Livingstone, along with those who helped him, would have instantly "expelled themselves" without a hearing. This threat will almost certainly backfire, as the party will now be committed not only to booting out 'Red Ken' and his closest backers, but to launching a full-scale witch hunt when members start to speak out for him. This will guarantee a split in the London organisation and would have major repercussions nationwide.

Livingstone's plan may well be to "offer a truce to Mr Blair and appeal to be let back into the Labour fold" after winning the mayoralty (Evening Standard February 21). But it is most unlikely, to say the least, that the party leader would accept such a deal. His best bet in those circumstances would be to wait for Ken's popularity to wane and hope to see him off at a subsequent election without too much long-term damage. Right now he will be banking almost everything on a Dobson recovery in time for a May victory - that would finally rid him of Livingstone, minimise the risk of a permanent electoral challenge from the left and further strengthen his hand in reshaping New Labour.

We must fight to ensure that Blair's plans are thwarted and his worst nightmare becomes a reality. A Livingstone challenge for the mayor, running in tandem with a full, leftwing slate for the GLA, is clearly the best way forward in the interests of the working class. Had just four MPs voted for Ken instead of Dobson, then today Livingstone would be the official Labour candidate. That would have allowed the London Socialist Alliance to capitalise on the paradox of a perceived anti-Blairite running alongside a fully Blairite list of constituency and slate candidates. It would have made sense for thousands of workers to vote Livingstone for mayor, but LSA for the assembly - giving a consistent voice to the mass anti-Blairite sentiment that has swept the capital.

In fact all the indications are that Livingstone will not only stand as an independent, but run his own slate, so eliminating any such contradictory situation. The nature of that slate will be crucial. Ideally Ken should enter into immediate negotiations with the LSA, the Campaign Against Tube Privatisation and others with a view to drawing up a joint list based on the working class, trade union and socialist movement. But Livingstone is thought unlikely to want to staff his slate with the left groups - particularly the CPGB and the Socialist Workers Party, with whom his past relationship cannot be described as cordial.

Given Livingstone's general record, given the void that is on the left of politics, and given the fact that the support he enjoys stems from a mood of passive rebellion amongst the working class, it might be assumed that a break from Blair led by Livingstone would automatically signal a left split, opening up tremendous possibilities in the fight for a genuine workers' party. If that were the case, it would certainly be correct for the LSA to consider stepping down in favour of such a movement, however inadequate its programme (not that the LSA's own platform is a fully-fledged revolutionary programme).

However, there are worrying signs that Ken may be seeking instead a broad, populist 'rainbow coalition' which includes individual businessmen, Tories and Liberals, alongside anti-racists, environmentalists, left social democrats and trade unionists. Such a mish-mash would have no direction, other than that dictated by the ambition of its leader. It would represent a huge betrayal for those on the left who have placed their trust in Livingstone to fight first and foremost for the interests of our class.

Clearly, if he refuses to enter into discussions with the LSA, etc, we will need to look very carefully at the slate he puts together. If it was based on the likes of Pat Sikorski, Liz Davies and Lee Jasper, then despite all our reservations about such individuals, it would be recognisable as some kind of left challenge deserving of critical support.

If, on the other hand, it did not have an overwhelming working class bias, then it would be the duty of the LSA to oppose it. Livingstone himself would not be worthy of support if he downplays the left and workers' movement and bases his challenge to Blair on cross-class populism.

We say, judge Livingstone on his slate.