09.06.2004
Ken Livingstone - Not so red
Phil Hamilton reviews Ken Livingstone's campaign website.
It seems nearly everyone on the left wants to be associated with Ken Livingstone. In 2000, the now defunct London Socialist Alliance attempted to ride his coat-tails by producing a number of ‘vote Ken, vote LSA’ leaflets. Four years on, things are ever so slightly different. Now Livingstone has been accepted back into Labour (under his terms, it must be added), the Respect powers-that-be have been forced to modify this previous stance. Having decided it was opportune to stand Lindsey German against him, Respect has called on voters to give their second preferences to Ken. I wonder whether this is in deference to his ‘lefty celebrity’ status or part of a Socialist Workers Party attempt to keep him and his Socialist Action toadies sweet in the run-up to the European Social Forum. Chances are it will be a bit of both.
Website-wise, the light blues, purples and occasional splash of red of his ‘Ken4london’ campaign is quite fitting, considering the broad political appeal our not-so-red friend has. Coincidentally, the colour scheme is far removed from the usual reds and whites one would associate with New Labour. Actually, viewers have to actively search out a mention of Labour on the home page (Livingstone’s welcome message has him signing off as the “Labour candidate for mayor”, and right at the foot of the page we have the party logo).
The first item in the ‘Latest news’ section when I logged on was “Norris ‘Tory wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing,’ says Livingstone”. Using the occasion of visiting Enfield to sing the praises of the ‘Safer Neighbourhoods’ policing scheme, Livingstone attempts to reap some populist capital. He attacks the Tory candidate, Steven “Call me Steve” Norris, for a cuts and privatising agenda that could lead to a reduction of police across London, and therefore a rise in crime. While this may be the case, the purpose of the release is geared toward creating the aforementioned wolfish sound bite, as opposed to a substantive criticism of Norris’s politics.
The second item deals with the praise being showered on Livingstone from the bourgeois house journal, The Economist. Supporting the flagship congestion charge, it criticises Norris for not backing this “market-based policy”. Likewise, former Tory MP Matthew Paris of The Times puts the boot in by criticising Norris “for reaching the hilarious conclusion that he could both be a candidate for mayor and the chairman of Jarvis”. Given Livingstone’s left credentials, he ought to be more choosy about the company he keeps, lest this be another case of ‘By their friends …’
Continuing the Norris-bashing, a further release responds to “Steve’s” attempt to board the anti-war bandwagon. Reporting on hustings organised by the Muslim Council of Britain, Livingstone is quoted as saying that Norris has repeatedly avoided all kinds of anti-war activity, including the CND-organised ‘peace hustings’. “Steve Norris takes a purely verbal position to try to prevent losing votes and divert attention from his Conservative policies of cuts and squalor,” concludes Ken.
The ‘Policies’ section is divided into ‘Four years of delivering for London’ (a run-down of Livingstone’s sub-reformist achievements) and the manifesto proper, ‘The next four years’. Looking at the ever-thorny topic of transport, it discusses how the congestion charge, combined with cheaper and more reliable buses, have helped reduce traffic volume, upped average speed and cut road accidents. More investment in bus security, stable fares and pollution reduction are the cornerstones of Livingstone’s transport policy. The other key issue is the tube. He offers more investment, the construction of new lines and a tough enforcement of contracts.
The ‘Extending opportunity’ and ‘A city to enjoy’ sections are quite interesting, if only for showing up the populist ideology underpinning Livingstone’s project. These truly are an exercise in bourgeois localism writ-large - the addressees are the catch-all ‘Londoners’, with the environs of the city being the limits of the political horizon. Despite the many criticisms one can make of Respect’s superficial mayoral manifesto, at least it does not treat London as some kind of autonomous zone with no relation to the wider body politic.
The links page offers a number of media and local government-type links. Other mayor candidates are linked too, including the Greens and the Christian People’s Alliance (!). Could Livingstone be thinking of resurrecting a commitment to rainbow coalition-style politics? The ‘About Ken’ page is quite a dull biography listing the various political posts he has held, but I was surprised not to see any mention of what he regards to be his achievements as head of the Greater London Council. Come now, Ken - it is not like you to be so coy.