19.05.2004

Pledges and platitudes

Respect's election broadcast for the Greater London Assembly was, to put it mildly, a little disappointing. I was under the impression that socialist film-maker Ken Loach was going to direct it, but he must have been either really pressed for time or called away at the last moment, to be replaced by some amateur video freak.

The broadcast was presented by Lindsey German, our mayoral candidate, who was obviously suffering from a serious case of under-rehearsal. She read her lines woodenly and with the occasional stutter - why weren't such sections re-recorded? She sat almost motionless, looking directly into the camera, and the side-lighting seemed to accentuate the pained, quizzical expression fixed on her face, as though she was straining to read the autocue. Judging by the hollowness of the sound, the location - looking out over London - was chosen entirely for the backdrop, without any consideration of how filming in an apparently empty room might affect acoustic quality.

Lindsey was hardly selected for her charisma, but the script did not exactly show up her political acuity either. Between clips of four Respect GLA candidates (thankfully shot in the open, where the clear light and crisp sound came as quite a contrast to comrade German's echoey office), she pointed to a few of the capital's failings and offered a platitude or two by way of solution.

The first of the assembly candidates was Linda Smith, London regional treasurer of the Fire Brigades Union. Like the others, she spoke naturally, looking at the interviewer, not the camera. As a trade union representative she was well aware of the acute shortage of affordable housing - many firefighters have had to move far out of London as a result. Unfortunately she was cut off by the sound editor in mid-sentence.

At this point comrade German came back in with the revelation that "New Labour has sold off more council houses than the Tories." Respect's policy? "Housing estates need investment, not selling off to [hesitation] investors with the deepest pockets."

Next we had Tansy Hoskins, who looked and sounded like an earnest but naive sixth-former. After enthusing about the diversity of this "amazing city", she noted that "What divides people is not the colour of their skin or different religions." The real division is between "the haves and have-nots". Tansy favours "equal opportunities for young people" and passionately believes in a state of affairs where "every child in London has things that rich children have".

Janet Noble said that what was wanted was "a party that addresses the needs of ordinary people". Sounding just like an 'ordinary person' herself (or at least how our Socialist Workers Party comrades imagine them to be - capable of grasping only the simplest of ideas), she continued: "I say, bring the troops home and spend that money on something worthwhile" - like London's "crumbling" services.

This allowed Lindsey to come back and point to privatisation as the culprit. On the tube, it was "pushing fares ever upwards and putting profit before safety". Her SWP comrade, Unjum Mirza of the RMT union, echoed her almost word for word. Instead of privatisation, "Respect would make emergency investment to upgrade the tubes and the railways," promised the would-be mayor. That should sort out the problem.

But what about crime? Since all the other parties make this a key issue, it could hardly be ignored. "People want a safer city," comrade German informed us. "Respect believes that we need to prevent crime rather than wait for it to happen." Such a profound statement will undoubtedly attract votes by the thousand. But surely Lindsey would not join in the chorus demanding more police? No, what was needed was "more caretakers, more park wardens, more youth workers and more station staff" - that should do the trick.

She concluded: "The strength of our city lies in its diversity, its public services and the people who live and work here. London is one of the wealthiest cities in the world. Why shouldn't the people who live here see some of the benefits? Just imagine what difference that would make to those who really need it.

"The election on June 10 is based on proportional representation. Every vote will count. Make the election on June 10 a referendum on the government's warmongering and privatisation. Vote for change," she urged, as her delivery faltered once again. "Londoners deserve Respect."

Londoners deserve a programme of working class action, not a combination of hollow phrases and empty pledges. Well-meaning platitudes cannot substitute for hard policies - and Londoners know it.

No confidence

The Weekly Worker was hoping to carry two interviews with Respect candidates this week. George Galloway had promised to speak to comrade Mark Fischer, while I have been attempting to corner Liz Wheatley, who is standing in the GLA constituency of Camden and Barnet.

Unfortunately comrade Galloway pulled out, citing the "level of personal abuse" in last week's paper. "Personal abuse"? We know he did not like 'Around the web', since he believes it could be read as linking him directly to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (see Letters). Even if such a misunderstanding might conceivably have arisen, the column carried criticism of Galloway's politics, not his personal hygiene or personal appearance.

Talking of personal appearance, I suppose it is more likely that the image of a heavily pregnant MP for Glasgow Kelvin - cleverly put together (literally) by our design team - might have upset him. George, this is known as satire and, once again, aims to expose what we believe is a political weakness. As we asked on our front page, "What would it take to persuade George Galloway to support a woman's right to choose?"

After all, Galloway should, in the words of comrade Manny Neira, know "the difference between his individual right to act according to his conscience and the right of citizens to be democratically represented". Why can't he answer such pertinent points, instead of going off in a huff?

Whereas I am sure he had every intention of allowing us to conduct an interview (before he decided to affect hurt, that is), I doubt if you could say the same for Liz Wheatley. SWP members are not usually prepared to enter into an exchange of views with the Weekly Worker - the very notable exception being councillor Michael Lavalette, who has consistently spoken to us frankly and openly.

Leading SWP members such as Rob Hoveman and Candy Udwin have in the past only agreed to be interviewed if questions are provided in writing, with the carefully considered responses delivered to us a day or so later. Sometimes they have declined to answer certain questions altogether.

I was a little dubious, then, when the Weekly Worker received an invitation to interview comrade Wheatley from Sean Thompson - a prominent, non-SWP Respect campaigner in Camden and Barnet (see Letters, May 6). Comrade Thompson provided me with Liz's mobile phone number and I was determined to ask her views on, amongst other things, the suggestion that she should consider standing down in favour of the Labour candidate, Lucy Anderson, who has a reputation as an anti-war, anti-Blairite leftwinger. We had, after all, already published comrade Anderson's side of the story (Weekly Worker April 29).

I did manage to speak to comrade Wheatley, very briefly, on three occasions (her phone was mostly switched off). On two of those she was "just on my way out", while on the third she could not speak, as she was at work. But she was never able to suggest a time when she would be available.

I was very pleased to get hold of comrade Wheatley early on Friday evening, since that gave us the whole weekend to find a suitable 20-minute gap in her busy schedule. Unfortunately, there seemed to be none - all she could suggest was I try again on Sunday afternoon, even though she would probably not be available - a stall had been organised, but she could not remember the time. She rejected my alternative proposal for 9.30 on Sunday morning, since "I have to have some time to myself". Needless to say, her phone was once again switched to voicemail when I tried on Sunday afternoon and she did not return my call.

Why are our SWP comrades so reluctant to be interviewed? Because they know we will ask them about things they would rather not talk about. Such as their diplomatic silence over the question of abortion, or their dropping of once cherished principles like a worker's wage and open borders. They have no confidence whatsoever in their own ability to defend these positions in any genuine exchange of views.

Unfortunately that does not say much for their capacity to act as people's tribunes. Imagine Respect making a national impact and coming under the scrutiny of hostile media hacks. How would Liz fare on Newsnight, faced with a predatory Jeremy Paxman?