25.10.2000

Chameleon Ken's union-basher

When he stood for London mayor Ken Livingstone claimed, unlike the overtly anti-union Blair government, to be a supporter of trade unions and of workers in struggle.

Unlike New Labour's notables, who would not be seen dead doing anything that might be interpreted as solidarity for those in struggle, Livingstone addressed workers' demonstrations at Ford Dagenham, and pledged his undying support for those resisting job cuts. This generated considerable illusions within the London trade union movement that the working class had found a candidate who would stand up for their interests - so much so that Blair was compelled to rig the ballot to ensure that the huge majorities for Livingstone among both trade union and Labour Party members did not lead to Livingstone being selected as Labour's man for mayor.

In the sequel, of course, Livingstone was overwhelmingly elected in a vote that did represent a rebellion, albeit at a lowish level, against the rightwing control-freakery and overt hostility to even the most moderate 'old Labour' social democracy on the part of the Blair machine.

Most on the left adopted the principled tactic of giving critical support to Livingstone, in order to encourage this anti-Blair, working class-based revolt. At the same time, by putting him to the test of office, we considered that the working class would be able to judge for themselves, on the basis of his performance, whether his claim to be some sort of principled working class advocate was justified.

Livingstone's period in office has not exactly inspired confidence. Apart from his appointment of people from a range of parties to run various advisory posts in the new Greater London Assembly, and his 'campaign' against pigeon droppings in Trafalgar Square, he has been well nigh invisible. His one concrete, and not merely rhetorical, pledge was to oppose the Blairites' partial privatisation of the underground, and to issue GLA municipal bonds in order to borrow money mainly from banks to finance modernisation and investment in the tube system.

This not very radical social democratic scheme was viewed by trade unionists and commuters alike as a lesser evil to the privatisation schemes of the government - but, in a period of rampant domination of 'free market' economics, in the Labour Party it was heresy. In reality, it was something that could easily be filled with an overtly anti-working class content, as indeed were the anti-working class forms of nationalisation promoted by the Wilson-Callaghan Labour governments in the late 1970s.

Now Livingstone, hiding behind his statutory lack of power, and unwilling to further anger the Labour leadership, has taken a leaf out of Callaghan's book. It will be remembered that it was the Callaghan government that appointed Michael Edwardes, a pro-apartheid South African hot-shot boss, to run British Leyland and allegedly 'save' it as a nationalised industry. Livingstone has appointed a similar character to run the tube. Robert Kiley, a former head of the CIA and one-time boss of the New York Metropolitan Transport Authority, is to be paid £2 million per annum to boss the tubeworkers.

To say the least, he was no friend of the unions in New York when he was in charge of their members in the 1980s. His method of 'saving' New York transportation was through speed-ups, short cuts on safety, and multiple attacks on the rights of the workforce.

What is even more appalling about this action of Livingstone is the fact that there are historical precedents that already exist in Britain as to the future actions of such a character. While the US ruling class had no particular desire for privatisation of the New York subway, in Britain the omens are rather different.

It will be recalled that the same Michael Edwardes who was appointed as a 'strong man' to 'save' Leyland under Callaghan, was instrumental under Thatcher in attempting to smash the unions though repeated victimisation of militants and even lay bureaucrats such as Derek Robinson, in order to pave the way for ultimate privatisation.

Livingstone has just appointed an anti-union hammer-man who could be very useful to Blair in the future in the drive to break workers' resistance to privatisation.

This action of Livingstone is so egregious it could easily begin to drive a wedge between him and those many workers who had illusions in his pro-union, anti-privatisation rhetoric, as well as in the 'socialist' aura from his days as leader of the Greater London Council.

It was correct for revolutionaries to give critical support to Livingstone in order to link in with any mass movement to back him. His recent actions suggest that his response to the 'test of office' will not favour the working class.

It is the job of revolutionaries to push home our criticism of Livingstone and to win workers to the idea of a genuinely independent working class alternative.

Ian Donovan