26.05.2004

Our vision for London

As the mayoral elections approach, and millions of Londoners are asked to choose between visions of their city's future, a heady sense of excitement is slowly but surely failing to build up. From 'Red' Ken to Respect, the candidates are offering no vision. Jem Jones fills the gap.

There are just two short weeks until the elections on June 10. Campaigning is well underway on behalf of a whole array of parties seeking to win councillors, London AMs and MEPs. An outside observer would be forgiven for thinking that there really ought to be more excitement.

Why disinterest rules is no mystery. Despite a massively increased popular engagement in street politics over the war with Iraq, there is a corresponding increase in distrust and contempt for mainstream politicians of all stripes. Alike, the Labour government and the Tory opposition dully repeated US lies about Saddam Hussein. Together with Charles Kennedy they automatically supported 'our' troops when the war began and now, along with the Greens, they all humbug about wanting to involve that den of thieves and murderers, the United Nations. Not surprisingly then, when it comes to Europe and the politics of local government, their platforms are universally uninspiring.

Such an assessment is even more deserved in the case of the mayoral election in London. Of the candidates, Ken Livingstone is the clear favourite to win. He has the advantage of his track record as current office-holder and being seen as an anti-war, anti-Blair candidate. His biggest disadvantage is that he is back in the fold of the pro-war, pro-Blair Labour Party.

'Red' Ken's vision for London is woefully prosaic, demonstrating how unwarranted his nickname is. He promises yet more police officers on the beat, minor reforms to the overstretched public transport network and a reduction in vehicle fumes. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates do not even seem to be trying. They differentiate themselves from Livingstone by mere degrees.

In contrast, the Green Party's Darren Johnson has a slightly more ambitious vision. His action plan includes compulsory solar panels on new buildings and more allotments. Well-intentioned no doubt, but the Greens do not attempt to address the fundamental issues facing working class people in London. This is not surprising. Whereas communists seek to liberate humanity from the shackles imposed on us by capitalism, the Greens with their lack of class politics seek merely to replace those shackles with ones that are made from recycled materials.

Wasted opportunity

The London manifesto of Respect's mayoral candidate, Lindsey German, is most disappointing. Contesting the mayoral election provided comrade German with an excellent opportunity to raise the profile of Respect. Unfortunately, instead of putting clear red water between Respect and its rivals, comrade German, a leading member of the Socialist Workers Party, plays it safe with her 'vision' for London.

Lazily, Respect for the most part simply echoes Livingstone and eclectically borrows from here and there; however, because the comrades know they have no chance of getting elected, they throw in a few uncosted, ill-considered populist proposals for good measure, so it appears that they are standing to the left. Accordingly, the congestion charge is lauded, with the proviso that there should be a sliding scale based on income, instead of a flat rate. Try administering that nightmare. Respect repeats the Liberal Democrats' call for a service tax instead of the council tax, and steals the Greens' policy for 20mph speed limits in residential areas. Thankfully it does not call for more police, but nor does it call for a reduction in their numbers (let alone their replacement by a democratic people's militia).

Respect's London Manifesto represents a wasted opportunity, merely promising more of the same … only a little bit nicer. Communists have the duty to provide leadership to the working class, developing an analysis of the past and the present in combination with a vision of what we stand to gain, and setting out a plan of action outlining how to achieve it. This is important - we do not merely react to circumstance: we seek to be positive agents of change. We are capable of imagining a future and working to realise it.

A vision for London

The mayoral elections provide the occasion to present a genuine vision for London. Basing ourselves on need and the logic of the class struggle, not working within the narrow constraints currently imposed on us by the bourgeois state, allows us to sketch out what London might be like under a regime of democratic, working class control - which of necessity is already pushing at and through the bounds of capitalism. Respect candidates, and indeed all the others, rightly acknowledge that London's greatest asset is its population. A cynic might say this is simply a ploy to gain their votes, but it is nevertheless true. However, although Londoners have had a very real effect on the development of the city, they have never been truly in control of their own lives: they have been subject to the drives and imperatives of capital. The struggle for human liberation will change that. London, and indeed all cities, will then reflect the fact that humanity is in control of its own destiny and able at long last to achieve its full potential.

Cities represent concentrated humanity. The historic foundation of cities about 5,500 years ago in Mesopotamia enabled the development of civilisation. It allowed us as a species to move from existing in isolated communities to interacting with one another on a much greater basis. Cities led to centralised government; they provided the opportunity for mutual defence; they enabled the exchange of ideas and increased cultural development; acted as a nexus for trade and ultimately industry; and, no less crucially, provided a home.

Over time cities have spread across the globe, growing substantially in size, and in the developed world most of the population now live in urban areas. Cities represent progress therefore, but too often that progress has been at the cost of humanity. Industrialisation and the development of capitalist world trade led to huge advances in technology and production, but the workforce were forced to live in squalid conditions, resulting in appallingly high mortality rates and poor quality of life.

There is an imaginative lineage between the Victorian Manchester depicted by Engels and Dickens's London and the nightmarish negation of humanity that cities in dystopian science-fiction represent, such as in Ridley Scott's Bladerunner or Mega-City One in Judge Dredd. But clearly, London 2004 is neither a slum-ridden death trap nor a technological hell-hole. All that is good has been won, and often through fierce struggle. Nevertheless there is no room for complacency. Housing is prohibitively expensive, travel painfully slow, the underground system is creaking and increasingly dangerous, work is stressful and crime and anti-social behaviour is endemic.

In contrast, a workers' London would not have to pull against the needs of capital, but flow with the needs of humanity. London is an incredibly diverse city; there is a bewildering array of distinct districts, dividing the city into extremes of rich and poor; residential, commercial and cultural; work and leisure. Our London would not be the opposite extreme of this; it would not be Stalinesque in its uniformity. But it would break down such rigid and unnecessary divisions; it would break up the existing ghettos. Capitalism forces us to compartmentalise our lives and its cities reflect that. A workers' London would, however, be an environment encouraging complete lives. Its populace would be able to live in comfortable, safe and healthy surroundings; able to enrich themselves with culture and education; able to lead productive lives; able to relax and enjoy themselves; able to enjoy the highest quality sustenance and healthcare; and most pertinently they would be able to access all these aspects of life easily using an efficient transport system.

Transport

If we imagine London to be a living organism, then its transport system are its veins, arteries and nervous system. That network is clogged and sluggish. Many roads are congested with private traffic, the buses and the tube are overcrowded, dirty and unreliable and pedestrians and cyclists often have to take their lives in their hands. Travelling into and around London is not a pleasant or an easy experience.

However, the answer does not lie in pricing some users off the road and packing them onto already overstretched public transport. Instead, what is needed is a genuinely viable alternative, one that is preferable to private transport. Public transport should be free, paid for from the profits of big business, in order to allow people to move more easily about the city. The tube system needs to be expanded, and in many areas heavily modernised. Buses need to be more frequent, with new routes introduced to make them accessible to all Londoners. The number of dedicated bus and cycle lanes needs to be dramatically increased and the same applies to pedestrianised areas and pedestrian crossings - even at the cost of private road-users' inconvenience.

Door-to-door community transport for the elderly and people with disability is at present merely tokenistic - where it exists at all, that is. Many more staff must be made available to support not only the elderly and disabled, but also people unfamiliar with London. Why should anyone have to struggle to safely navigate their way around our capital? Freight could be transported by rail or river.

Many people travel in London for work but, making use of new technology, more of these jobs could be done at home with just the occasional trip to a central office. Clearly there also needs to be some time and money dedicated to the creative development of public transport, including cleaner forms, and better utilising the Thames. We should aim for a London where social transport is so efficient that private vehicles would become increasingly few and far between.

Democracy, planning and development

As discussed, many of the problems faced by Londoners are results of its development having being controlled by a powerful ruling elite. A democratic London would be run through workers' and residents' councils - representative bodies elected by, and directly and instantly accountable to, their constituencies. They would represent people who work together and people who live together. Decisions would of course need to be coordinated and facilitated by a central organisation - one that is, again, democratically elected and accountable. Councils would operate within workplaces and communities, not apart from them.

Rather than allow London to grow haphazardly at the behest of capital, workers' and residents' councils would be responsible for the development of the city. At present there are office buildings on premium land lying empty, while people live in hostels, substandard accommodation or are without a home. Coordinated planning would ensure that everyone had a home sufficient for their needs, and be able to move as those needs changed. Needless to say, land must be nationalised, so democratically decided planning and building decisions would be based on people's needs, not those of capital. This would require an increase in social housing and a gradual erosion of the concept of private housing.

Housing is of primary concern, but such planning would also enable London to free up more space in crowded districts, to be turned into parks and woodlands. Ways must be found of relieving parts of inner London of its claustrophobic quality through a more human-friendly and green environment. Developing London in this manner means that districts would contain amenities that all too often require long journeys at present; ensuring that there are schools, hospitals, leisure facilities and so forth equal to the needs of the community and within easy distance. Prominence should also be given to, for want of a better phrase, community centres. These would provide a venue for meetings, communal childcare, education courses and the like.

Crime and the militia

Crime is the expression of material circumstance, produced by economic and social inequality, despair and resentment. It arises first and foremost from the absence of solidarity in fragmented capitalist society and such alienation means that empathy for those outside one's particular environment is often in short supply. The response of bourgeois politicians is to increase the size of the police force in a vain attempt to suppress the symptoms rather than tackle the cause. What will reduce crime in the long term is social justice, stronger social networks and the provision of more opportunities for people to creatively express themselves.

Respect's London manifesto asks the rhetorical question, "Why do we never hear [about the police dealing with] corporate crime?" The answer is because they are the police, existing above and beyond our control; they are accountable to the bourgeois state and do its bidding. The bosses fight each other mainly through the civil courts, using teams of extremely expensive lawyers. A democratic London would have to go hand in hand with ever expanding measures of workers' control over offices, factories, hospitals, depots, etc. We put our faith in those below, not the police force: indeed even under capitalism communists are committed to the disbanding of the police force and its replacement by a citizens' militia.

The concept of neighbourhood watches was flawed from the outset - set up to provide police collaborators and informants; but the idea of residents cooperating and watching out for one another could be an empowering one. Residents' committees could coordinate efforts to reduce anti-social behaviour at a local level.

Culture, leisure, education and health

London boasts a rich and diverse history - its turbulent and triumphant past is visible throughout the city. Communists recognise the advances made by previous generations, and do not seek to deny the past or negate its gains; rather we learn from the past and seek to allow humanity to progress still further. London is famous for its statues and monuments, its palaces, castles and churches. Such features must be fully socialised, their use democratically decided by the people. Churches, temples and mosques will receive no funding from the state; instead their upkeep will be the responsibility of their congregations.

Culture should be readily and freely available. Museums, art galleries, concert halls, sports fields and such facilities must be accessible to all. Works of art currently closeted in private collections should be made available to public galleries, and in turn loaned to venues around the country and abroad. Funding, support and encouragement should be given to people wishing to express themselves creatively. Equally, the fullest provision should be made for those wishing to put forward their point of view; with uncensored, subsidised access to television, radio, the internet and printing presses. Debate should be encouraged, and no doubt Speaker's Corner and Trafalgar Square will continue to be popular venues.

London has benefited from successive waves of newcomers, both from elsewhere in the country and from overseas. This has a positive influence on the development of the city. Hostility to immigrants, an often insular outlook on the part of migrants themselves and the pervading, divisive ideology of multiculturalism have together produced highly segregated communities. Our London will be inclusive, promoting assimilation of fresh ideas and the enrichment of a common culture.

The health and education of Londoners should also be paramount. At present such provision is of highly variable quality and generally insufficient. Health and education should be seen as a right, not a privilege, and a responsibility of the community; not merely those directly involved as users or providers. Teachers, carers and health professionals should elect their own workers' councils to run all such institutions democratically with the participation of patients and students. Health should be viewed holistically, with extra emphasis placed on prevention and the mind-body paradigm, rather than just the treatment of illness. Needless to say, religious and private schools will be abolished. Education should be ongoing and should encourage people to debate, develop their own ideas and challenge existing ones.

The future of our city will be determined by a bewildering array of intercepting variables, not least of which is the ongoing struggle of the working class for emancipation. Nevertheless, there is no reason why we cannot start immediately to implement such an ambitious programme for London. Hopefully my initial musings will provoke debate on what kind of city Londoners want to see, and by extension, what kind of society we want to live in