Editorial 2
Millbank creates another fine mess
The saga of the first ever contest for London Mayor is reaching epic proportions. Ken Livingstone has finally made it onto the shortlist but the deadline for Labour’s electoral college has been extended until February – almost tripping over the election itself.
Even the Tories, forced to rerun their contest after Archer’s withdrawal over yet more sleaze will have selected their second candidate before New Labour has chosen its first.
Tony Blair launched a vitriolic – and at times almost incoherent – attack on Livingstone just after the shortlist was agreed. Despite their best endeavours to vilify Livingstone and his record at the GLC, the London electorate refuse to be dissuaded from supporting a candidate who opposes tube privatisation.
It is this popular support – and the clear indication from the polls that it would be maintained even if Livingstone were to stand as an independent – that forced the Blairites to concede him a place on the shortlist.
Of course they dressed it up – claiming that chivalrous Dobson had insisted that Ken should be allowed on. Well, of course he did – but why? Precisely because he would have looked completely foolish if Livingstone had been excluded, stood as an independent and won.
At this point, the outcome of the electoral college itself is not clear. Millbank clearly think they need more time to win. On the other hand on the lengthened timetable, it may be more difficult for them to keep up the exclusion of key trade unions – for not paying 1998 subscriptions in time.
Nor does their cry that they want to focus the discussion on policies ring very true. They are not winning the key battle on transport – and even if the memory of Paddington fades a little it is difficult to see what further manoeuvres they can try to win further ground here.
They can’t try to use the General Election manifesto which is broad enough to encompass Livingstone’s suggested – and London’s preferred option.
Margaret Hodge’s attack on Livingstone for tokenism in his policies for women rings more than a little hollow from the woman who single handedly demolished nursery provision in Islington when she was council leader – while herself hiring a nanny.
The Labour loyalists led by Michael Cashman, have tried a clumsy attempt to pin the blame on Livingstone for the introduction of Section 28, saying that it was his "extremism" that led the Tories to introduce this legislation. But this seems instead to have reminded many lesbians and gay men that Livingstone was prepared to support them when few others – and certainly not the party leadership – were.
From this point of view, not to mention the sickening and repressive statements on crime coming from the front bench, and with the tube as the number one issue, it is wrong of Livingstone to suggest that there are no differences with the leadership on any other matters.
Further, his written submission to the reconvened panel on November 18 , was like too many of his previous statements, ambivalent – in this case about what he meant by saying he would stand on the Manifesto agreed by the Labour Party.
Of course it is right that there needs to be a major battle over that manifesto; that Labour Party members and trade union levy payers in London should be demanding the widest possible consultation – and the extension of the deadline to allow maximum possible debate.
But the lesson of Blair’s leadership indicates that while the left have been successful sometimes in having our people elected we have not succeeded – even when we have a majority at the base – in imposing our policies.
And given that this issue will go to a Policy Forum on which the Blairites have a clear majority it seems unlikely that this could be any different.
In this context it is important that those who were making plans to stand socialist candidates for the Assembly election continue to do so.
Of course this must go hand in hand with the key task of mobilising the biggest possible vote for Livingstone within the electoral college. And of course we must also fight to ensure that responses to the consultation on the Manifesto take a clear line opposed to PFI/PPP as well as arguing for progressive policies throughout.