Editorial
Livingstone's leap: which way will he jump?
KEN LIVINGSTONE won a moral victory in Labour’s electoral college, despite one of the worst pieces of gerrymandering ever seen in British politics. Despite all the efforts Frank Dobson only scraped home by 51.53 % while Livingstone got 48.47% after Glenda Jackson’s second preferences had been divided.
Around 36,000 individual Labour party members voted — giving Livingstone at 6040 majority in this section. In the trade unions, Livingstone’s majority was 72%to 23%. 98 % of his votes in this section came from trade unions that held members ballot’s while 80% of Dobson’s share came from those that refused to do so.
Dobson’s majority of 86.5% to 13.5% in the third section where 75 MP’s, MEPs and GLA candidates had the same weight as all the individual party members or all the affiliated trade unions was key in delivery the result for him.
Livingstone’s vote showed the strength of opposition in both the Labour Party and trade unions both to Blair’s policies and to the dead hand of the Millbank mafia.
As Livingstone stated on February 23: "the future of the tube was the defining issue in Labour’s selection contest and by backing me, the great majority of party members made clear their opposition to privatising the Underground. They simply reflected the overwhelming majority opinion in London. Labour must accept this verdict".
But is clear that despite his lack of democratic mandate, Dobson will not stand aside. Nor have the new Labour hierarchy any intention of altering their commitment to privatising the tube despite Livingstone’s calls to turn May 4 into a referendum of this issue. When Dobson made a feeble attempt to silence Livingstone by saying he would hold an inquiry into the best funding method, Millbank slapped him down by pointing out that they determine the manifesto.
Opinion polls are clear that were Livingstone to stand he would stand a very good chance of winning. The majority of Londoners want him as mayor.
Of course opinion on the left of the Labour Party and trade unions is more divided — but there are many who will support him if he gives the lead whether or not they tear up their membership cards.
Livingstone should stand and should announce that he will do so as soon as possible. In fact he has already waited longer than was advisable. It is true that in the first days after the electoral college votes were announced it made sense to hold back.
This exerted pressure on Dobson and his supporters while allowing Livingstone to take soundings of his. But to wait longer allows the momentum of the result itself to dissipate. Those who voted for Livingstone in the electoral college are looking for a lead - Livingstone should give it to them by declaring his candidature.
As far as the Greater London Assembly is concerned, Livingstone should be constructing a slate of Labour movement candidates on a platform based on the interests of working people. He should call open meetings of all those who support his candidature, to democratically agree a slate that would run with him.
This would allow existing organisations such as the London Socialist Alliance the chance to argue for their candidates and ideas and take their chance of winning support from this broader forum.
Nothing to fear
There is no doubt that the majority of those who back Livingstone are trade unionists, party members and other campaigners so the left would have nothing to fear from such a process.
Certainly this process would result in broader layers than currently exist organising around a political alternative to new Labour - and might even produce some high profile candidates.
If Livingstone were to do what some rumours suggest and come up with a slate of business people, ex-Tories and Liberals, this would be a kick in the teeth for those in the Labour movement and campaigns that have supported him. Another possibility would be a mixed slate with some figures the left would support and others that would be much more problematic
While in either case, socialists should still back a Livingstone candidature for Mayor, a concrete assessment would have to be made as to whether we would support an accompanying slate.
Indeed it would be preferable for Livingstone to stand alone rather than to mix it with representatives of business and bosses.
The worst option of all of course would be if Livingstone bowed to the pressure from Blair and his cronies and decided not to stand. This would be handing victory on a plate to Millbank.
Many people would leave the Labour Party anyway - but they would generally do so without any positive direction in which to move. Their energy would be wasted and the left inside and outside the party would be weaker.
Now he has positioned himself at such a focal point of politics, much hangs on which way Ken decides to leap: forward to help lead a fight-back for public services, or back into a surrender to Blairism.