21.07.2004

Our ESF, not Livingstone's

The finances for this year's London European Social Forum finally seem secured - but with London's mayor Ken Livingstone firmly in charge of all decisions, what kind of event will it be? asks Tina Becker

Almost every piece of information is ‘classified’ and the weekly meetings of the coordinating committee have long become a farce. “This is like virtual reality - decisions are obviously being made all the time by somebody, somewhere. Just not here in the coordinating committee,” complained Oscar Reyes (Red Pepper) at the July 15 meeting .

For example, Dave Hillman from the Tobin Tax campaign told the meeting in a throwaway remark that our event has been downsized to cater not for 40,000 people any more, but only 20,000 (the first two ESFs saw more than 50,000 visitors from all over Europe). Dave Hillman is one of the few people who are being kept ‘in the know’ by Redmond O’Neill, Ken Livingstone’s appointed director for transport and leading member of Socialist Action.

Most of the ESF activists, however, remain in the dark. “Every week we ask for information on issues that have obviously been decided somewhere and every week we get told that the relevant person is not here, but will definitely present a report the next week,” fumed Sheila Triggs from Women in Black. “This has been going on repeatedly for months now and I’m having to fight very hard to keep my organisation on board,” she said. 

Now we hear that Livingstone wants to run in parallel to the ESF two rather different forums in London: a ‘municipal forum’ for mayors and local governments from across the world; and a ‘parliamentary forum’ for members of the European and national parliaments. Needless to say, neither the ESF coordinating committee nor the organising committee have been officially informed, let alone consulted, on this issue, though. Similar events were, of course, put on during the Mumbai World Social Forum in January 2004.

It looks as if even the comrades from the Socialist Workers Party have fallen somewhat out of favour. At the July 15 meeting, comrades Jonathan Neale and Nancy Lindisfarne were very critical of “not having seen a proper budget yet”. As comrade Neale put it, “We simply cannot work like this. We might have to throw Tina [Becker] out of the room to hear it, but that’s OK,” he suggested sheepishly. Having apparently now found itself in the same position as the rest of us, the SWP has not, however, suddenly been converted to the need for openness and accountability. A rough budget has been presented by Redmond O’Neill at the latest coordinating committee meeting on July 22 - however, details are being kept strictly secret. 

Why all this secrecy? We can assume that nobody is fiddling the books to make its sums add up. So what is there to hide? Financial information is obviously being withheld for political reasons - so that the mayor and his lieutenants in Socialist Action can shape the event to serve Livingstone’s own ends.

Livingstone has made no secret of his high ambitions - he dreams of one day moving into No10 Downing Street. After Tony Blair and Blairism there might well follow Gordon Brown … but after that? Livingstonism? He is a complex, intriguing and many-sided political personality. At the same time a devious committee room manoeuvrer and an arch populist - apparently modest and self-effacing, but with an insatiable appetite for publicity and controversy; both a red-baiter and an admirer of that loathsome Trotskyist toad, Gerry Healy; a man of Labour’s left who can, perhaps, be trusted with the highest office in the land.

Hence Livingstone’s twin-track strategy. On the one side the mayor pledges to increase police numbers, eagerly promotes the City and big business, and disgracefully, but in bourgeois terms, eminently responsibly, calls for London underground workers to cross RMT picket lines. And on the other hand he champions politically correct causes like multiculturalism, feminism, anti-fascism, the environment, etc, which, because he shuns any kind of socialist or working class programme, are gutted of any democratic content. Organisations like Unite Against Fascism, the National Assembly against Racism and the Respect festival are staffed by his Socialist Action cadre.

And now the ESF. As a project to bring together progressive and left forces across Europe on a higher political and organisational level, it is of no use to Livingstone. However, as a one-off festival that he can run and control and use for his own purposes - a gift of an opportunity.

Not only has the process of turning the London ESF into a Livingstone-fest alienated many organisations in Britain, some have either angrily pulled out or are watching sullenly from the sidelines. It looks as if our comrades from across Europe are alienated too: at the second meeting of the international programme working group, on July 18 in London, only three people from non-British organisations showed up - and one of them actually lives in London. Crucially, there was no representation from France, Italy or Greece.

This passive attitude is understandable, but regrettable. The need to unite our forces to challenge the EU of the bosses is too important to be diverted by Ken Livingstone’s ambitions.

London’s ‘social alliance’

After having urged RMT workers to cross picket lines, Livingstone has been at pains to justify himself, including in his weekly Morning Star column: “A broad progressive alliance has been able to dominate London’s politics for 25 years. All sections of the movement have necessarily had to make compromises to hold it together … Some RMT executive members are quite mistaken if they believe that some thousand workers’ industrial muscle can make up for a social alliance which holds together millions of people in London” (July 14).

Just who is part of this “social alliance” that workers fighting for better conditions are putting at risk? As well as the unions themselves, there are gays and lesbians, blacks and Asians, muslims, anti-war campaigners - all those who vote for Ken anyhow.
The RMT’s London regional transport secretary, Brian Munro, responded in forthright fashion: “The coalition … that Livingstone claims our industrial dispute threatens isn’t that of the gay and lesbian movement or the anti-racist movement. It threatens the relationship between Livingstone and [Gordon] Brown … he is now singing from the same fiscal hymn sheet as Brown, which is why he is attempting to denigrate our perfectly legitimate claim” (Morning Star July 16).

According to Livingstone, who must imagine himself the leader of this “social alliance”, “This [strike] would have threatened to bring a Tory mayor to power and was against the interests of every section of the progressive forces in London” (July 14). Well, apart from maybe “the interests” of those “progressive forces” who do not buy into the idea that elections are the be-all and end-all of politics. The fact of the matter is that without trade unions and strikes for better pay and conditions the working class would still be working a 12-hour day and a six-day week, and for a mere pittance at that. Anyway, it was very unlikely that Livingstone would have been defeated by Steve Norris - just why would a strike have made voters less likely to back Livingstone?

Nevertheless, to keep his “social alliance” alive, Livingstone demands compromise - from those below: “London Underground is a non-profit-making company and claims therefore can’t be financed by squeezing profits,” he says. Transport for London has only two revenue sources: fares and government funding. “If the RMT executive can persuade the treasury to grant extra funds, that is no problem, but everyone knows it won’t happen and I therefore can’t base London’s finances on it. The real effect of the RMT executive’s current proposal is therefore a fare increase to finance its claim … The RMT executive’s practical demand is therefore that other London workers finance their claim.”

Why is it that a powerful working class movement capable of forcing the government, and in turn capital, to concede extra funds “won’t happen”? It has of course happened many times before. But according to Livingstone’s logic, all public sector workers should have their pay capped and agree not to fight for better pay and conditions - because, if they won, that would automatically lead to higher tax demands on “other” workers. By the same token it could be argued that higher government spending on the NHS would also have to be met through taxing workers. But where does capital come into the equation?

While Livingstone tells London underground workers not to be greedy, some of his friends and colleagues show no restraint. Instead they have got their snouts in the trough:

- London Transport Commissioner Bob Kiley earns £360,000 a year, plus an estimated annual bonus of £250,000. He also has use of a £2.1 million house in Belgravia, paid for by Transport for London. London tube managing director Tim O’Toole gets £250,000 a year.

- Various Socialist Action members have recently been promoted by Livingstone: Redmond O’Neill (director for transport) and John Ross (director for economics) now earn £111,000 each and Simon Fletcher, Livingstone’s chief of staff, is on £117,000

- In 2003, the government paid public subsidies of £600 million to shareholders of private bus and tube contracting companies

- Capita, the private company running the congestion charge scheme, made £121 million profit in 2003

- Bus operator Go-Ahead has made more than £50 million since Livingstone introduced the congestion charge. Go-Ahead’s chief executive is set to receive £1.2 million in dividends this year.