Monday, May 21, 2007

Hodge on Housing / Damp Squibs / High Rise Hysteria / Recommended Blogs / Website


Hodge on Housing

A government minister, Margaret Hodge MP, has broken with political convention and come out in support of a policy that cannot be disguised as being anything other than discriminatory against non-Brits.

She's said that British people should get priority over immigrants for council housing. She wants the allocation system - which works through using a points system - to give weight to length of residence, citizenship and payment of National Insurance contributions. At present, council housing is allocated on a points system that is geared towards prioritising those in most need through awarding priority to those in bad health, currently living in poor conditions, overcrowded, etc.

Revealing his usually ill disguised ‘liberalism’, President of the Liberal Democrats, Simon Hughes MP, appears to be endorsing Hodge’s approach by saying that housing allocation was among the biggest causes of racism - "The worst cause of racial strife and antagonism is when new property is built, social property, and then people who appear to have no link with the community move into it, when other people who may be desperately needing to move, can't get a move." Hughes has a long history of bending to reactionary attitudes displayed by some of his constituents.

This is also one initiative where the ‘new’ Tories aren’t going to make much effort to maintain their recent ‘cuddly’ veneer. They’ve jumped in and said that they've been saying all along that the problems of immigration needs to be seriously addressed by measures such as this.

Margaret Hodge, who as the BBC points out was born in Egypt, said rules should "promote tolerance rather than inviting division". But there’s little that can be imagined to ‘invite division’ such as giving the 'native' population - usually white, but not always so - priority for public housing over those residents with greater need.

It’s no accident that Hodge is the MP for one of the last remaining (until recently) near all-white and poor areas in London. Barking has also seen more electoral support for the BNP than anywhere else in the country. The policy she proposes could have been written by that party.

I think it may be significant that it would be hard for anyone, with a straight face, to argue that her proposals are anything other than open discrimination. All the major parties, for the last thirty or forty years, have always swore blind that they are opposed to all forms of discrimination and will argue, sometimes in the face of all evidence, that they don’t support bigotry.

Once these politicians don’t feel the need to ‘cover’ themselves anymore, what other festering policies might they pull out of their party wheelie bins? It'll be interesting to see whether this may be a harbinger of new ‘common-sense’ policies that will no longer feel the need to be in line with the ‘equalities’ consensus.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damp Squibs

I saw a programme about the different approaches to fighting forest fires in the extensive woodlands of the western USA and in the endless tree cover of Siberia.

In the States, the fire-fighters were fully resourced and sent out with all the latest kit. They travelled to the fires in helicopters, in All Terrain Vehicles and by light plane. They were in constant touch with base and worked in teams to tackle the blaze.

The Russians were unceremoniously parachuted out of passing plane with nothing but a few tools - an axe, a saw, etc - to fight the fire. They needed to improvise. They set to work hacking down trees to make firebreaks. They weren’t in touch with their base and no back up was available.

It strikes me that the task of Lefts is not dissimilar to these firefighters, but with a twist - we want to help spread these blazes that have already broken out or even do a bit of arson.

Lefts in this country have never been organised like those American firefighters. We’re also in somewhat a worse position than those Russians tackling blazes in the far easterly Tundra. It's like we’re stuck in Moscow trying to cadge the fare to get on the Trans Siberian Express to work.

We have next to no equipment or little experience in teamwork but we clearly aren’t very good at the improvisation either - it may be obvious that if you deny a forest fire of trees to burn, it will die out but we have no clue about where to buy accelerants, never mind where to use them.

It’s hard work racing around looking for a few embers that may be past saving or that will never get going. If we do get to a few sparks, we may often find that we can only make a futile attempt to reignite them with half a box full of safety matches but no striker or, more usually, with a handful of damp tinder and no means of a light.

I’ve covered this theme before. I’m even running out of metaphors to describe it - as the above laboured paragraph demonstrates. I would have left it alone for a while, if it wasn’t for the outpouring of directionless frenzy and then mournful despair that was a result of the brief flowering and then wilting of John McDonnell’s bid to be Leader of the Labour Party.

Dave Osler sums up some of the issues well when he says.

"Based on my involvement with the Socialist Labour Party and the Socialist Alliance, it doesn’t look like there is currently any possibility of building a meaningful left political formation outside of Labour.

As the electoral wipeout of the Scottish Socialist Party underlines, even if Respect or the CNWP were to make limited headway, it is most unlikely that they would be able to consolidate it.

Then again, the McDonnell campaign illustrates that it is currently impossible to build any meaningful left current within the Labour Party, either.

Let me just sum all that up. All tactics have been tried; all have been shown to fail. Not only are there no short cuts, there isn't even a long way round.

About the only useful work Marxists in Britain can undertake right now is to utilise whatever limited avenues for activism are available– which might be the Labour Party, the Greens or leftwing parties that have a local base, or more likely the trade unions or single issue campaign based - …"


I endorse his views that much everything - a Left Labour Party (SLP), a Left of Labour Party (Socialist Alliance) - and more - have been tried and have failed. Whether they didn’t work because of the concrete circumstances then or because of the way these putative parties were led - and whether they would work if tried again now, but in a better manner - can be but moot points.

So I have no answers. The Campaign for a New Workers Party is worth supporting but it’s also a small formation based on the Socialist Party (with some support from other organisations) that hasn’t yet shown it can grow.

Respect is both a Left AND Right popular front that would be liable to being instantly dismissed if it wasn’t also the home of the largest British Left party, the SWP. It's seen both Lefts and Rights elected as councillors!

I don’t know what to do. I’m sitting, waiting but also doing whatever I can to support a regroupment of British Left forces. Apart from that, work in the trade unions and in single-issue campaigns is also a necessary tactic for all. Comrades did succeed in establishing a party in Scotland. They’ve suffered major recent setbacks but are still going on, even if now split in two.

But I know what I’m not going to do. The Labour Party has not once turned leftwards since 1981 or 1982. It’s either being turning right or maintaining a steady course for those last twenty-five years or so.

McDonnell dropped all the Leftism, hyped his campaign relentlessly and was despatched with just a slight movement of Gordon Brown’s languorous eyelids.

And still ‘Lefts’ say, ‘never mind, we must go back and reorganise’. The Labour Party will very probably never again be home to the sort of politics that these Labour Lefts want. Left Labour types often don't realise that parties change, sentiment deceives. But if they can’t see that, after a few decades of its recent history, they really are dead for all useful political purposes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High Rise Hysteria


I haven’t bought a local newspaper for a long time. Their poor diet of stern looking Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators (always with arms crossed) surveying their patch; regurgitated advertorial dressed up as restaurant reviews and council PR output masquerading as news isn’t often anymore worth reading than random pages in a telephone directory.

But my eye was taken by the photo on a front page of local rag in north east London. It reminded me a little of the shot taken in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of Martin Luther King when shocked bystanders were all looking up towards the presumed firing position of the shooter.

There’s a local paper tradition were a victim is asked to recreate the look on their face they were displaying when they first became newsworthy. So a few days after being mugged in her home, a compliant pensioner will be requested to repeat the look of fear, as well as the shying away, as though the photographer is demanding her life savings rather than asking her to pose for a picture. The photo that caught my eye was very much in that tradition.

In this shot, everyone is also looking in the same direction and grimacing. But that look of great apprehension on their faces was about a ‘problem’ that's just in their fertile imagination and is unlikely ever to escape from there.

The story is that a high rise block of flats is being erected near an infants school. And, horror of horrors, the youngsters’ playground will be overlooked by these new residences.

One of those pictured in the paper, beadily looking upper stage right towards fantasy miscreants, is the local MP (and former Conservative party leader) Iain Duncan-Smith.

IDS’s quoted in the article as saying the new development could become a "paedophile's paradise". And, he also goes on to say "It raises questions about who is going to be living in these flats, and for all we know it is people with a motive for living near a school."

I know that fear. I recently visited a school. After signing in, I needed to wait whilst someone scurried away to a back office to check my bona fides. Then on passing through this outer citadel, I had that woman from the office rubbernecking my further progress from behind whilst I was under the watchful eye of someone else who had been despatched from the inner sanctum to stand near the door, so as to monitor my walk across the playground. I can only presume that their actions were to ensure that I didn’t break step and make use of any blind spots to dash into a classroom and go on a rampage.

I’ll update you here when IDS succeeds in raising a posse of locals - whose eyebrows meet in the middle - and manages to burn out anyone who moves into the new block.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommended Blogs

I’m pleased to be adding a couple of new websites to my select list of recommended blogs that are written by revolutionary socialists.

I first heard of Louis Proyect when I signed up a few years ago, rather rashly, for a Marxist email discussion list. I was new to those kinds of things and I probably didn’t set up my account very well.

Every time I looked at my email account there would be various new Marxist messages from around the globe. These messages mainly seemed written to take apart previous contributions to the discussion list - and to do so with a blunt cleaver. And then when I logged in later, these messages had bred further and mutated. These mongrel posts then spawned no end of rabid puppies that fought to the death in subscribers’ email boxes. I unsubscribed.

The quality of many Left blogs in the USA appears to be a lot higher than those written from this side of the Atlantic. There probably are American versions of the chatty, cliquey, lightweight stuff, that often just re-reports items from the liberal press or are just screeds produced primarily to settle petty scores - and which dominate British Left blogging.

Louis’s site is a long way above those dead-ends. It’s a delight to peruse his articles - such as recent writing on creationism, the Iranian left and more - as well as intelligent book reviews and readable cinema criticism.

I’m also pleased to list my first Scottish blog, Red Squirrel's Lair. I’ve argued with the main writer, Korakious (a Scottish Socialist Party member) about his views in support of Scottish independence here and here. The blog concentrates on Scotland and the Scottish Left and does it with a hard-edged political analysis that cuts through the usual hubris.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Website


I’ve made a few changes to this website.

I’ve dropped the feeds from the World Socialist Website, the Socialist Workers Party (Britain) and the Committee for a Marxist International. They’ve been dispensed with for no reason other than a lack of space.

I’ve added a widget that displays the last 12 posts. There’s also another new widget that lists the last six comments made on my site - more comments are always welcome.

You will also see a link to a new companion website that I’ve launched - Southpawpunch Life.

I’ve thought for a while that I've wanted somewhere to post some of my writing that won’t fit in the main site. The first article there is a short piece about a film genre. I’m working on something more substantial, on another arts matter, and that will probably be published this week.

I envisage Southpawpunch Life will carry my writing on arts, culture, travel, events and more. I may even try out some of my fiction there. I won’t be posting stuff there often and will announce on this site when there is something new there.

I don’t consider myself an expert on any of the areas that I will write about in the way I do see myself as an experienced and educated communist.

But I do have an enthusiasm and an interest for arts, culture and more. And although I’ve had a few things exhibited and have also made some very small amounts of money, I think I’ve at least acquired an ability to see through a lot of fashionable tripe and hyped banality that is much of what passes for contemporary culture. I won’t be able to discuss it in the terms that an artist may but that won’t stop me passing judgement.

There’s one genre, across all mediums, that’s always likely to raise my hackles - the soft, soppy, Leftish bleatings and pleadings of no end of liberal musicians, writers et al. I don’t know why I should reserve a special scorn for this ilk, maybe it’s the obfuscation or the misleading bluster that I particularly deplore but I’d, for example, much rather listen to something with mindless drivel for lyrics than endure a Guardian reader’s exposition of his world view in song.

I’m also not (always) taken with the cult of the new. I don’t really care whether something appeared today or thirty years ago; if it’s accessible and interesting, I will consider writing about it. I’m just as likely to comment about an old Graham Greene book as I am about the latest Günter Grass.

Monday, May 14, 2007

McDon’t vote for him / The First War of Indian Independence / Ultra-left?

McDon’t vote for him

Will he? Won’t he?


Has John McDonnell got enough nominations from MPs to challenge Gordon Brown for the leadership of the Labour Party or hasn’t he?

In circumstances where even Brown has felt it necessary to claim he will be distancing himself from the never-ending spin of the Blair years, the pussyfooting of the McDonnell campaign about whether they have the numbers is worthy of a Campbell or a Mandelson.

Who’s the McLefty?

But how Left is the McDonnell challenge?

With the patience of Job, Labour Lefts have been waiting 12 years for a contest. But John’s coat of many washed out greys makes even self-flagellation look more attractive than supporting his bid.

Meacher - the 'centre-leftist' candidate - has been widely derided by McDonnell supporters as being too right. But how do they compare?

Who wants the basic state pension at £114 p/w and who wants it at £119 p/w? That's right, McDonnell and then Meacher. On National Minimum Wage, its £7.50 p/h (McDonnell) and £7 p/h (Meacher), whilst, er, the European Council Decency Threshold level is (a little) higher!

Which is more Left of the following? -

- ‘We should not merely reverse these market downsides, but celebrate a strong revival of the public sector and expand it in areas such as free law centres, affordable housing and rail travel’ - Meacher.

- ‘The end to privatisation of public services’ - McDonnell.

One appears to be calling for renationalisation (Meacher), the other for status quo (McDonnell). Of course, neither would do either.

Looking through their programmes in detail, you'll notice how similar they are. So if you are a Left Labour type who was cursing the heretic Meacher, you’ve really got to do the same for McDonnell. I mean, you're not a hypocrite are you?

McDonnell's programme


He’s hardly Harry Perkins. His programme includes:

- The end to privatisation of public services.

Well, there aren’t so many left to be sold off. Quite a few council, central government and health services, I suppose, but I wasn’t aware of any great initiative by the government to flog those off at present.

But there’s no talk about re-nationalising anything from McDonnell. Even a left reformist will usually suggest taking back former public services - transport, energy and more.

Revolutionary socialists, on the other hand, would not support buying them from their shareholders (which is the usual definition of nationalisation). We argue for taking them from the owners, with financial compensation only in the case of proven need - you can see it as the reclaiming of stolen property, if you like.

- Defence of comprehensive education and the abolition of student tuition fees.

There isn’t a comprehensive educations system. The rich sent their kids to private schools. A formal grammar school system remains in a few areas and both faith schools - funded by the state, run by the superstitious - and various half-opted out schools e.g. City Academies - run by businesses - exist everywhere.

There’s also no end of jiggery-pokery from pushy Guardian reader types shoving working class kids out of the way in the rush to get their Constance a place at the ‘best’ school.

So let’s replace all the above with a comprehensive education system - abolish all non-comprehensive schools. Match that McDonnell.

It’s correct for McDonnell to say he will abolish student tuition fees. But even the LibDems can sign up to that one. So why the silence about student grants - you know as paid back in the hard-core Left days of, er, Callaghan and Thatcher?

Communists say pay students a decent grant to enable them to be educated without running up debts. I’m sure that would be more than paid for by scraping Trident.

McDon’t vote for him


I wouldn’t expect McDonnell to call for much. But as the Labour Lefts haven't been as excited since the run for the Deputy Leadership, in 1981, by Labour Christian Socialist MP Tony Benn (who was in the news recently in connection with giving his Cabinet Minister son £100,000s of shares) how about just a few Bennite measures - call for council houses to be built, renationalise the railways, rent control?

Did I say Bennite? I could also mean Wilsonite from the above list. But there's nothing approaching any such reforms in McDonnell's programme. Why are Labour Lefts bought so cheaply? Have they no minimums?

I fear that the McDonnell candidature will be just one more painful lesson about who runs the Labour Party for the small number of slow Lefts that have an (emotional, financial, pharmacological?) dependency on the Left wing party of capitalism. And as for self proclaimed 'revolutionary socialists' signing up for this dishwater - give us our flag back.

I recall, on leaving the Labour Party in 1986, being painfully aware that I was doing this four years too late (after the Bishop’s Stortford agreement). I (still) fear that I will have a hard time justifying those extra years to a future revolutionary tribunal enquiring about my political history.

But what sort of Lefts give money to the Labour Party nowadays - the intensely stupid, the mad or the very, very bad?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The First War of Indian Independence


Commemorated this past week was the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of The First War of Indian Independence (known as the ‘Indian Mutiny’ to imperialist lackeys and those subjected to the culture and teaching of same).

In 1857 the East India Company maintained a lockhold over India, particularly since the Battle of Plassey one hundred years before. The war ended the rule of the East India Company and instituted direct rule of the colony by the British government.

As well as the vast sums that it made from trade, the East India Company heavily taxed residents - and it would appropriate their property if they couldn’t or wouldn’t pay. It seized Princely territories through devices such as usurping the property if the ruling family didn’t have a male heir. You can still see the outcome of the company’s plunder in many a fine country house or church in England.

I remember walking round the Indian National Museum in Kolkata (Calcutta). It took me about 15 minutes. I’d forgotten that the Indian National Museum is in fact the British Museum, or is places like the Tower of London where the purloined Kohinoor diamond rests in one of Elizabeth Windsor’s crowns.

How to revolt

When you revolt, you play for keeps. You kill your enemy. If you don’t deal a fatal blow to your better-resourced oppressor then their vengeance on you is likely to be at a higher and more shocking level than you ever managed. You do all you can to ensure they don’t get the chance to return the blow.

After the Revolutionary War, the victorious Americans treated the American Tories (British loyalists) in ways that would have made the American Civil Liberties Union collapse under the weight of its own caseload. They were right to do so. Britain may have been defeated but was to be a menacing presence over the infant American republic for years to come. Redcoats remained in New York City. Britain set fire to the White House in 1812. No weakness could be shown in the face of such a threat.

In the Indian uprising, Europeans leaving Kanpur (Cawnpore) were massacred, despite having been offered free passage. European women and children, kept as hostages in the city, were killed. The execution of these prisoners was wrong although it could be argued that it was necessary to protect the captors from being identified and hung if the Brits returned.

But the retribution by the Redcoats - the Devil's Wind - was to blow a lot more fiercely than ever did the pressure of the sepoys’ violence. In Delhi, the Redcoats besieged the rebel capital and, on breaking through, the British troops proceeded to loot and pillage. Large numbers in the city were cut down in retaliation for the Europeans and Indian collaborators that had been killed by the rebel sepoys. Many British soldiers asked to be discharged from the Army soon after the war so that they could establish themselves with the great wealth that they acquired.

After the end of the war, the Redcoats hanged or "blew from the cannon" (tied across the mouth of the barrel and shot fired through them) the majority of sepoy prisoners. Many innocent villagers were hanged on suspicion of being mutineers in a spirit of revenge that led to numerous atrocities.

The rebels should have been a lot more brutal when they had the chance.

Echo

What was the response of Lefts to this uprising? As the sound of that gunfire, of those long ago exchanges fought with cannon and muskets, has a modern resonance.

I mean the revolt was one that restored a monarchy (the Mughals) that claimed all India, and also brought to power some local hereditary plutocrats with lesser ambitions but deeply malevolent outlooks. The rebellion also provided a route to importance for some other very reactionary religious figures.

It was an uprising that was designated as a ‘jihad’ by some and saw some communal conflict between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims (and more) as well as sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.

And what about the position of women if the rebels had won? Under British rule evangelical Christians at least called for them to be educated. Under rebel (and British) control, not only were women denied an education; no-one went to school except for a minuscule minority. Widows were forbidden from remarrying, some were even pushed or jumped onto the funeral pyre of their dead husbands.

I haven't yet found any information about any contemporary British groups that may have been called something like 'Radical Women for the Redcoats - Just Say No to Sexism', but maybe I just haven't looked hard enough.

The most famous reason given for the ‘Mutiny’ was the (probably untrue) claim that new gun cartridges - that needed to be torn open in the sepoy’s teeth - were greased with pork or beef fat and thus breached the religious sensibilities of Muslims or Hindus and Sikhs (and more).

Surely just for this superstitious baloney alone, those like Karl Marx - the inventor of scientific socialism - wouldn’t have countenanced any support for the natives. Surely he would have acclaimed the Redcoats for their bringing of the Age of Reason to the backward Indian masses as part of the glorious sweep of history.

Of course not, Lefts supported the revolt. They were enthused by it despite every wildly exaggerated (and a few true) reports of the foul treatment of captured European soldiers, women and children.

The prominent Chartist, Ernest Jones, who had previously been imprisoned for sedition welcomed the War in his book ‘The Revolt of Hindoostan’.

Marx and Engels wrote a lot on the War, as correspondents of a New York paper but where they restricted themselves to factual reports of the course of the campaign. But beyond the pages of the capitalist press they wrote how the colonial exploitation of India led to the uprising, noted the general unity displayed by those professing differing religions and were clear in their support of the rebels natives. See the apt quote, from Marx, in the comments box below that Adam Ford has unearthed.

And I’m the ‘non Marxist’ (according to some) for supporting the Iraqi and Afghani resistance!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ultra-left?

You may have read the comments others have made about this website in the ‘What others write’ box (top right).

One of the silliest slights you will read there is where ExTrots have called my views ‘ultra left’. Search the Southpawpunch index for more on why this description isn’t true.

But then I suppose that as the distance of these ExTrots from revolutionary politics increases over time, the perspective of a rapidly retreating object will only give a very narrow vector on its original position. Isn’t there some physics from Einstein that talks about shifts in colour as objects accelerate and recede?

So I was a little surprised when something from Webland was brought to my attention. If you search Google for - ultra left wing blogger - you will (currently) receive 541,000 results. And what’s the position of my site in this list of more than half a million web addresses?

First.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Stormy Weather? / Turn Again, German / Labour Left Losers


It's the end of a blustery Bank Holiday Monday. I'm looking through my London window - over the leaves blowing against the post box and past the satellite dishes - it's just 500 kms to the border with Scotland.

And if I turn my swivel chair to look through the side window - above the abandoned car and through the flapping, shattered panes of the bus stop - it's also 500kms to the French capital.

The weather reports from both places over the last few days, have mentioned looming storms for the Left. Some think we'll be able to batten down the hatches. I'm not so sure.

Way Forward

I’m not going to let a depression settle over me about election results that represent approximately just 1% (France) or 0.15% (Scotland) of the planet’s population - but the numbers achieved by the Left are a setback.

Of course, the question is - why did the Scottish and French Left do so badly? There’s lots of blogland speculation. But the truth is that no one knows - if they did, we'd be winning.

There’s a (correct) argument that Lefts shouldn’t hide what they preach. So a party that stands alluding to a full revolutionary programme, and that is quite clearly for communist revolution, will not necessarily be disadvantaged by taking such a course. The disastrous showing of Lutte Ouvrière in the French presidential elections could suggest such a view is mistaken.

There’s an argument that Lefts should hide what they preach and work within broader Left formations. So a party that supports a full revolutionary programme, and that is quite clearly for communist revolution, should argue for a Left reformist programme and they will not necessarily be disadvantaged by taking such a course. The disastrous showing of Solidarity and the Scottish Socialist Party in the Scottish elections could suggest such a view is mistaken.

I've no great insight into the way forward although I've written before on the basic organisational and political changes that the Left should make.

But some of the circumstances are beyond our control. I hope for (pray for, more like) a change in material conditions - an influx of new blood, such as in the late 60s, that as well as bringing relatively largish new numbers to revolutionary socialism would also rejuvenate those party members still toiling away.

I also don’t discount possible extra-national influences - the French Revolution provoked great ferment in Britain - major upheavals could still right the ship of revolutionary socialism.

But instead of being now in the 1950s, we may instead be in the 1850s. If that's the case, whilst we may hope for a revival of Chartism, in fact we’re going to have to wait more than 30 years just to get New Unionism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turn Again, German

I’m pleased to see that Lindsey German is going to stand as the Respect candidate for the mayoralty of London in 2008. I’ll be voting for her. I urge everyone else with a vote to do the same.

German came fifth in the last London mayoral election, beating both the BNP and the Greens in 2004.

I will be supporting her to build, as much as anything. I think it's conceivable, for example, to see her standing as a SWP candidate for Mayor in 2012 (Respect having gone) and building on, who knows, 4th place in 2008?

I'm happy to support her standing on the (left reformist) platform of Respect:

- Renationalisation of the railways and other public services.

- Opposition to the privatisation of the National Health Service and the education system, including opposition to university tuition fees and support for pensions increases linked to average earnings.

- Raising the minimum wage to the European Union's "decency threshold" of £7.40 an hour.

- An increase in income taxes on the rich to fund social welfare programs and close the income gap.

- The repeal of the industrial relations legislation brought in by the Conservative Party in the 1980s.

- The defence of the rights of refugees and other asylum-seekers.

Her critics

How can any Left not vote for her, I ask?

The general answer, coming from ExTrots and the like, of why they will not vote for her is:

- because she may let the Tory in,

- because Livingstone isn’t so bad

and (speak it very softly comrades, for fear of your sectarianism being exposed)

- because she’s a member of the Socialist Workers Party and Respect.

Tory

The 'don’t split the anti-Tory vote' argument is as feeble as it’s ancient. Indeed the Labour Party only exists because a few with some foresight and guts split the anti-Tory vote, a.k.a. the Liberals, one hundred years ago or so.

If you really are so easily pleased, and have such limited political horizons, it can be no surprise that those who want to change society - rather than just make it as least unpleasant as possible - look on your politics with scorn.

I’m sure I hate the Tories as much as any ExTrot. But I see them as the Tory Conservatives as opposed to the Labour Conservatives.

I think people were surprised by how right wing Blair acted when he became Prime Minister. But I predict Brown will move (very slightly) right to exactly where Blair is now. And if Cameron took over, you wouldn’t see the join.

So I don’t think a Tory mayor would be different (in any real sense) to a Labour mayor. ‘Labour’ doesn’t run the country or the capital - it’s more correct to say the FTSE100 companies do.

Ken Livingstone - Mayor of London

It’s often a tired Tory tactic to dismiss a council newspaper as ‘propaganda on the rates’ but the ‘Londoner’ - the free newspaper from the Mayor of London (which reads as though it was written by his mother) does justify such a description. The rag is also a good insight into the politics of this ‘Left’ old fraud.

If you have the stomach to actually read upbeat article after jubilant report, you’d imagine us to be living in a new 'Swinging London' era. According to paper, everything in the metropolis is rosy.

- Down the tube

You’ll be told how us users of public transport are apparently revelling in a world-class transit system that speeds us swiftly to our homes from the after-hours cornucopia of delights that is central London.

Us strap-hangers can only be mistaken if we think we’re paying the most expensive fares in the world for buses that just laugh at their timetable. We are also just whinging if we object to the daily street life scenes on London's transport - such as seeing some poor penniless unfortunate getting the full ‘No ticket, No mercy, sonny’ routine from a cohort of menacing ticket inspectors whilst immigration staff stand by keen to get in for second helpings.

- Cops

There’s a relentless bigging up of the Old Bill in the Londoner. You might think that Dixon of Dock Green still pounds the beat - albeit equipped with a Taser, an extendible baton and CS gas (doubtless in the interests of community safety) - in place of his trusty whistle.

The human interest filler in the rag about the police also suggests that types like George Dixon still walk their beat, from his old Paddington Green nick, albeit now transformed into an urban fortress into which Islamists can be disappeared for up to a month.

- Congestion Charge

The Londoner will spare no plaudits in lauding the ‘success‘ of the Mayor’s Congestion Charge. But this is a regressive tax - it hurts poor car drivers more than it does richer ones. The less money the former have, the higher the proportion of their income that they pay to drive in central London.

It's basic revolutionary socialism that Lefts should oppose such taxes. We support progressive taxation, not regressive. But it’s basic reformist orthodoxy for all the wet Lefts to support the tax as sort of 'cuddly' and 'greeny'.

- Homes for the rich

And just where in the Londoner is the news about all the low cost housing that the Mayor was going to oblige the builders of residential developments to provide?

I did read that Livingstone was bemoaning the ability of the developers to frustrate his plans. Really? Property developers squirming and wriggling out of every control you try and put on them? You don’t say, Ken. Are you new to politics?

- London: streets ahead?

And how else would you know, unless reading the Londoner, that the capital is edging ahead of New York as the centre of international finance?

Whilst Gross Domestic Product isn’t a very good indicator of where such a centre may be, the fact that the US economy is almost seven times the size of Britain’s (USA GDP at PPP in 2006 was $13.3 trillion, UK GDP at PPP in 2006 was $1.926 trillion) shows the ludicrous hyperbole of that particular claim.

- Livingstone: capitalist’s tool

Livingstone is a man of his time. He masters London in a way that present day capitalism dictates. So, for example, his current green credentials were not at all evident whilst he was Leader of the Greater London Council (until 1986), despite green policies being quite popular at the time (the Green Party got 15% of the vote in Britain in the 1989 European Parliament elections).

In recession hit 30s New York, Republican Mayor LaGuardia, ensured massive public works programs that used thousands of unemployed workers. All those facilities that those workers built were necessary for a capitalist city to function and all those pay packets helped boost demand.

In a similar way, present-day Republican politicians - such as Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and Bloomberg as Mayor of New York City - have now taken on major green initiatives (and been praised by Livingstone for doing so).

None of these right wing politicians undertake these measures out of a fraternal concern for their fellow men and women. They do it because it’s what local capitalism has decided is the best way forward to protect and boost its profits.

And so when Livingstone pontificates about climate change, he does so at the behest of those forward thinking capitalists who see the need to invest now (and especially for the state, not them, to invest) so as to deflect the otherwise probable encroachment on their bottom line later.

SWP

I’ve seen Lindsey German operate close up. It wasn’t easy listening to some of the openly reformist cant she espoused as Respect parliamentary candidate for West Ham in the 2005 General Election. She’s a long time SWP central committee member and so reflects both the good and bad in their politics.

Yes, the SWP are sectarian down to a T. But then their membership is quite a few more than the rest of the British Far Left combined - so you can sometimes almost understand their complete disinterest in the politics of Left groups whose membership figures only make it into double figures.

And yes, the SWP's politics have headed off on a distinctive right track over the last few years. But many a strike wouldn’t happen, or would collapse sooner, if it wasn’t for the Socialist Workers Party.

And who’s to say the SWP won’t head off on one of their abrupt turns, a few years hence, possibly leftwards. I could see that happening if they did lose control of Respect or if it became moribund. They dropped the feminist ‘Women's Voice’ and the paper for ethnic minorities ‘Flame’ when they decided they were doing them more harm that good.

Respect

I think Respect is a popular front. It contains socialists right through to reactionaries. Recent interviews in the CPGB’s Weekly Worker with some small businessmen selected as council candidates showed just how bad are some of its worst elements.

But many Lefts concentrate on just the detritus in Respect. Myopic Lefts also see Asians supporting Respect in places like east London and think, for ultimately racist reasons, 'Islamists'. Living here, I see Respect supporters that do include Islamists but also number young women, who happen to be called Zirqa, but who are both non-religious and radical.

I think many Lefts would be surprised to walk down Green Street (the main shopping street in the east London Asian ghetto) to see burqa-wearing women outnumbered 5/1 by young Asian women wearing the usual tight and short clothing of their peers.

Looking for a stick to beat Respect with, many Lefts will latch onto its previous weakness in supporting gay rights.

Supporting gay equality is a shibboleth - a particular distinguishing mark - for the Left. Although revolutionary socialists are hardly now the only ones to now support gay equality, it was the Bolshevik government that removed discrimination against gays 60 or 70 years before any capitalist government got round to undertaking such a step.

To drop these demands is a serious error. But reds don’t insist on any party they support always promoting a full socialist programme.

So, for example, all communists support a democratic, secular (and preferably socialist) Palestinian state to replace Israel and for it to be based on full equality for all its residents. But just because some reds now support Israel, doesn’t mean they are beyond the pale or not Lefts - even though the full comparison would be with a party that actually opposed gay rights rather than just dropping them.

I'm making no claim that Respect is principled. I’m making no claim that Respect is other than a left popular front. I didn’t vote for a previous Respect candidate on my ballot paper because, from Googling him, the only public activities that I could find that he had undertaken was making some religious pronouncements.

But if I had been in Lindsey German’s constituency in the General Election, I would have voted for her. I would have cast my ballot for her as a SWP member who also happened to be standing under the Respect name.

I will be in her constituency when she stands for the London Mayoralty and she will get my vote. I urge you to support her as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Labour Left Losers

A rebuttal that I will sometimes get to my scathing views on Labour is - ‘it's the MPs, Cllrs, etc who are right wing - and that they're not representative of most or many LP members.’

But clearly they are representative. A recent Sunday Times poll (so, yeah, take it with a pinch of salt) reported that just 9% of Labour Party members support McDonnell.

That would suggest a Labour Left of perhaps 15-18,000 (LP membership was 190,000 in 2004 - a fair few less now?)

Such a sum isn’t that much bigger than the Far Left, especially considering the average SWP member does five times the work of a Labour Left partisan.

Don't give your money to Labour. Join the RSPCA if you're too wet to change society. Give your time to Amnesty International and brighten the day of a few political prisoners. But rip up your LP card.