Lindsey German to challenge Red Ken

[Tom A]

I gather that she will go down like a:

made out of

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Look, Lindsay German may well be a complete buffoon and Respect may be a woeful undemocratic lash up, but why the hell should anyone stand aside for Ken Livingstone? Fair fucks to them on this at least.

 

[dennisr]

One Urbanite shares Lindsey's love of cooking: "I like my Greens boiled or occasionally fried, no exceptions."

Aye, but your advice came with a very different class weight behind it and did not have to refer constantly to the colour of the persons skin or religious background when discussing it??


You have to be honest - it was very, very weird to read that blog Udo - cringworthy in fact

 

[mk12]

"I spent a very busy day beforehand, meeting people, going to our press conference, doing an interview with The World at One, and meeting a wonderful group of Afro Caribbeans who are voting Respect..."

"I met lots of people _ a couple of older Afro Caribbeans swore loyalty to Blair, but generally most were unhappy."

 

[BarryB]

It isn't all politics in the Stop the War Office. Our biggest disputes are about chocolate..."

BarryB

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Not a Belgian and not a Trotskyist.

Correct. He was in fact French For some reason, I conflated my memory of Abram Leon on Maxime Rodinson.

On the Trotskyist question. Rodinson was a member of the CP and broke away from them to become an independent Marxist. His father played chess with Trotsky.

By the way why are you using two names Torres?

 

[pingupete]

People seem to be misunderstanding the electoral system here.

Firstly it's not STV, but a peculiar hybrid between STV and FPTP - voters have two votes, a first vote and a second vote. The votes for the candidates not in the top two in the first vote, have their votes eliminated and their second votes are then added to the two top candidates. Thus given that everyone accepts that Ken Livingstone will finish either first or (less likely) second in the first vote, it is perfectly okay to advocate voting Livingstone in the second vote without fear of a 'wasted' vote in the second.

I agree with FG on this. There is no reason for German not to stand in my view but I can understand that people both inside and outside of Respect might not want to stand against Ken Livingstone, and this might make some Respect activists uncomfortable.

 

[JoePolitix]

Thus in 2004, Respect were the only party in 2004 to call for a second vote for Livingstone. Hence German got a good vote because Respect voters understood that by putting German down for the first vote and Livingstone for the second, they would be both showing opposition to New Labour but ensuring Livingstone was elected against the Tories.

From the Morning Star:

On both domestic and international issues, the mayor of London has provided a progressive base around which socialist, environmentalist and other progressive forces have been able to unite. At the last mayoral election, the Respect candidate polled 4.67 per cent, with just 26 per cent of her second preference votes going to Mr Livingstone. In the event of a close-run contest next year, such a tally of more than three missing percentage points could prove decisive in working out whether we have a progressive mayor - warts and all - or a disastrous return to the discriminatory and divisive policies associated with Tory rule. The left cannot afford to indulge in the luxury of division. A unified popular movement, shattering the narrow confines of new Labour neoliberalism, could deliver a Livingstone victory and open the way to further successes based on unity of the left.”

 

[tim]

19% of the vote certainly wasn't 'making a prat of herself' last time - rejects. Beat the Greens and came 5th overrall.

If she got 19% of the vote, and came fifth all the other candidates must have got more than meaning that they must have all got more than 19.1% of the vote each, but not much more as you can't have more than that as 5 X19 =95 not counting the votes for the Greens and others the Greens and any other candidates. I think your maths are dodgy.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Here's in an article in todays Star. Cut and paste because the website is subscription only. Personally, I couldn't be bothered to read it - but others might.

Time for Respect
(Monday 23 April 2007)
LINDSEY GERMAN & GEORGE GALLOWAY
IN REPLY: LINDSEY GERMAN and GEORGE GALLOWAY respond to calls for Respect to step aside in favour of current Mayor Ken Livingstone at London elections next year.

WE were surprised to see your April 13 editorial on the London mayoral election, still more than a year away, when you urged that Respect stand down in the contest to allow Ken Livingstone a free run against the Tories.

You cite the Communist Party's decision not to stand a candidate as the basis for such a move, but, since the party has never stood a mayoral candidate, it is giving up rather less than Respect would be giving up if it agreed to this proposal.

The Respect candidate came fifth in the last election, beating both the British National Party and the Greens. Yet you do not direct your appeal to the Green Party, which could also be accused of splitting the vote.

The electoral system for London mayor actually makes it very hard for the vote to be split, since it operates on the basis of transfers - all candidates bar the top two have their second preference vote distributed to eventually determine the winner. Respect's candidate was the only one to call clearly for transfers to Ken in 2004 and more than a quarter of those voters responded - a relatively high proportion.

And there is no reason to suppose that, if Respect does not stand, its voters will turn out in a greater proportion than our transfers and vote for Ken.

'A good vote for Respect will help to keep the fascist British National Party off the London Assembly.'
Many will, like other disillusioned Labour voters, stay at home. Some may vote Liberal believing them to be anti-war. Some may vote Green as the only alternative to new Labour. Ken did better when we stood last time, as is proven by his advisers' request in the 2004 election - with which we complied - in the last week of voting to write a letter to the Guardian underlining our call for second preferences to go to Labour.

Not to stand for mayor would put Respect at a disadvantage in relation to these other parties, especially with regard to the list for the assembly, where, last time, we narrowly missed the 5 per cent that would have got us elected.

Without a mayoral candidate, the party has no access to the booklet which goes into every London household, no chance of appearing at hustings, little media exposure and no television and radio broadcast. That would mean Respect standing with one hand tied behind its back.

Of course, we should all take seriously the possibility of a Tory winning, although the failed attempts to persuade Greg Dyke to stand as a Tory and Liberal-backed independent show that David Cameron is not confident that a Tory candidate could come anywhere near unseating Ken.

As The Independent editorialised last week, "it is difficult to see a serious rival to Ken Livingstone emerging now." In the event of such a threat, this would be something that all the left candidates, including Respect, would have to take seriously.

In the meantime, it is important that a strong left voice is heard round many of the issues facing Londoners - the acute housing crisis, which is not being dealt with, the transport system, which is both the most expensive and one of the worst in the world, the privatisation of the East London Line and the business agenda, which is making London a worse place for many of the poor to live.

Those are the issues that were the basis on which Respect unanimously selected its prospective candidate for mayor at a large and representative meeting of London Respect members last week. We hope that you will respect their democratic decision at a time when Labour has never been more unpopular.

Ken's popularity, on the other hand, tends to be over those issues where he differs from the Labour government - his anti-racist and anti-war stances, his support for countries such as Venezuela and his commitment to equal rights. On these, we agree with him. But, surely, we have the right to say when we disagree.

Ken has a year to bolster his own support by stressing these elements of his programme and further distancing himself from Blair and Brown.

Meanwhile, the breadth of Respect candidates selected for the list demonstrates the support which Respect has across London. Our candidates include black, Kurdish, Muslim, Sikh, Irish, trade unionists, environmentalists, LGBT and disabled people.

It is likely to be the most ethnically diverse of all the parties. Some 50 per cent of our candidates are women.

Many Londoners are dissatisfied with the record of new Labour in government and will not turn out to vote Labour in the numbers that they once did. A vote for Respect by these people will help the left and can help Ken by lifting the left vote overall from people who might otherwise abstain.

A good vote for Respect will also help to keep the fascist BNP off the assembly. More votes for new Labour will not keep the BNP off the assembly, because the proportional representation system favours the election of smaller parties. So, the only way of keeping the BNP off is to vote for a left-wing, smaller party.

Respect is the obvious candidate for this vote - but its chances will be undermined without the publicity that comes from standing a mayoral candidate.

These are all important reasons why Respect should stand with as high a profile as possible. All of us on the left want to defeat the Tories and the BNP in next year's elections. A strong voice for Respect will help such a process.

George Galloway is Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. Lindsey German was the party's candidate for mayor of London in 2004 and was recently selected again as Respect candidate for the 2008 contest.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The article above is coherent and reasonable in tone. Unfortunately it's very politically weak, quickly reducing to the arguments that Respect would suffer as an organisation if it didn't stand and that some extra people bothering to vote will make it harder for the BNP to make 5%. Those arguments are fair enough as far as they go, but she doesn't say a single fucking word about why Respect would be better than Livingstone!

If you are going to stand against him, doesn't it make sense to actually criticise him, to point out the many things which are glaringly wrong with his politics?

 

[mutley]

'In the meantime, it is important that a strong left voice is heard round many of the issues facing Londoners - the acute housing crisis, which is not being dealt with, the transport system, which is both the most expensive and one of the worst in the world, the privatisation of the East London Line and the business agenda, which is making London a worse place for many of the poor to live. '

I think that's a reasonable statement of the criticism, in the context of a debate that we would like to see remain fraternal.

There are two lots of people arguing Respect should stand down. Sensible people who would welcome progress by Respect, and tossers who will still say we should stand down even if the Tory candidate is caught dealing drugs to schoolkids a month before the poll. We don't want to drive the first lot into the arms of the second.

Will the SP call for a vote or transfer to Livingstone by the way?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

I think that's a reasonable statement of the criticism, in the context of a debate that we would like to see remain fraternal.

One sentence, which doesn't even point the finger clearly at Livingstone.

Will the SP call for a vote or transfer to Livingstone by the way?

I certainly fucking hope not.

 

[mutley]

One sentence, which doesn't even point the finger clearly at Livingstone.

Well I'd say the implicit criticism is fairly obvious.

So if some tory shite is 1% behind Livingstone, and wants to take over because the tory shite says Ken is supposedly too soft on tube workers, and that we need an end to all this GLA multiculturalism on the rates, the SP would say there's nowt to choose between that position and Livingstone? Not even on a second preference after whatever left alternative takes your fancy?

A bonkers line imo.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

and wants to take over because the tory shite says Ken is supposedly too soft on tube workers

"Too soft" is presumably Respect code for calling on workers to cross picket lines?

I honestly think that it makes fuck all difference if Livingstone or some Tory is Mayor of London. Both will privatise and both will spend their time selling London as a wonderful place for capital to invest.

 

[mutley]

"Too soft" is presumably Respect code for calling on workers to cross picket lines?

I said 'supposedly too soft' and was putting words in the mouth of some Tory (assuming they ever find a candidate). Although it probably wasn't the best example to illustrate the point.

I honestly think that it makes fuck all difference if Livingstone or some Tory is Mayor of London. Both will privatise and both will spend their time selling London as a wonderful place for capital to invest.

On social/domestic issues you're probably right.. although if we had some Tory mayor implementing yet more attacks, and the labour left were arguing that some influential left current (of whatever character) was to blame by refusing to even transfer to Livingstone, the response that 'Ken would have been just as bad' would be a weak one.

And on international issues Livingstone's record is much better.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

And on international issues Livingstone's record is much better.

He's anti-war, which is a good thing, but so are quite a number of Tories. It wouldn't make me vote for the fuckers. As far as other international things are concerned, it's all very well that he'll host some Chavista public meeting or bung some cash at the ESF (in return for calling the tune, mind you!) but really, so the fuck what? As you seem to agree, as Mayor of London, on the social, economic and domestic issues he's been little different to a Tory and certainly little different to the kind of soft Tory who might conceivably win a London election. So no I wouldn't vote for him, I wouldn't call on people to vote for him and I certainly don't think that's a "bonkers position".

If by some chance he loses and some Tory gets in, the response to accusation of "you split the vote" is pretty simple. You point to Livingstone's actual record as a pro-business, pro-privatisation, anti-picket line Mayor and you say, so where's the fucking difference?

 

[JoePolitix]

As you seem to agree, as Mayor of London, on the social, economic and domestic issues he's been little different to a Tory and certainly little different to the kind of soft Tory who might conceivably win a London election. So no I wouldn't vote for him, I wouldn't call on people to vote for him and I certainly don't think that's a "bonkers position".

If by some chance he loses and some Tory gets in, the response to accusation of "you split the vote" is pretty simple. You point to Livingstone's actual record as a pro-business, pro-privatisation, anti-picket line Mayor and you say, so where's the fucking difference?

This is absurd. Livingstone's agenda is far from a tories. For a start he was opposed to the privitisation of the tube but had to abandon his court case when it was obvious he was going to lose. There's only so much he can do in his capacity as mayor of London.

I also think London's working class has benefited from his public transport policies - its a hell of a lot cheaper than Bristol I can tell you!

Then of course there's the support for progressive campiagns - ESF, UAF, Venezuela solidarity etc, his defence of multiculturalism etc...

This is not to say that Livingstone's an angel - there can be no excuse for his call to cross picket lines, which cannot be justified in any circumstances. But to say he's no different from the tories - bonkers is to soft a description.

 

[Groucho]

This is absurd. Livingstone's agenda is far from a tories. For a start he was opposed to the privitisation of the tube but had to abandon his court case when it was obvious he was going to lose. There's only so much he can do in his capacity as mayor of London.

I also think London's working class has benefited from his public transport policies - its a hell of a lot cheaper than Bristol I can tell you!

Then of course there's the support for progressive campiagns - ESF, UAF, Venezuela solidarity etc, his defence of multiculturalism etc...

This is not to say that Livingstone's an angel - there can be no excuse for his call to cross picket lines, which cannot be justified in any circumstances. But to say he's no different from the tories - bonkers is to soft a description.

I kind of agree with this. He also has a good record opposing racism and the so called 'war on terror'. The fact is though that Livingstone's call for RESPECT (not anyone else e.g. Greens) to step down has nothing to do with an outside chance that the Tories could get in and everything to do with attempting to snuff out a left challenge to Labour in the GLA elections and elsewhere. It's Labour first, Labour second, business third and principles fourth (at least he has some).

 

[JoePolitix]

I kind of agree with this. He also has a good record opposing racism and the so called 'war on terror'. The fact is though that Livingstone's call for RESPECT (not anyone else e.g. Greens) to step down has nothing to do with an outside chance that the Tories could get in and everything to do with attempting to snuff out a left challenge to Labour in the GLA elections and elsewhere. It's Labour first, Labour second, business third and principles fourth (at least he has some).

I can't help but notice that Respect are somewhat on the defensive in their critique of Livingstone. I imagine this has something to do with the backlash of their anti-Livingstone campiagn that has alienated some of the communites who in the past have been Respect's allies:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1994672,00.html

I also hear on the grape vine that Salma Yaqoob, undoubtably Respect's greatest asset, in uneasy about the decision to stand against Livingstone. Any truth to this?

 

[Groucho]

I also hear on the grape vine that Salma Yaqoob, undoubtably Respect's greatest asset, in uneasy about the decision to stand against Livingstone. Any truth to this?

The decision was a subject of debate. However, don't stand for Mayor = no point standing for GLA because you are not invited to hustings and do not get free publicity into letterboxes. So the issue is whether Livingstone has overstepped the mark to deserve a hard campaign rather than a 'friendly' candidature. Recall that RESPECT urge second preference votes to go to him (that's a subject of debate too)

 

[JoePolitix]

The decision was a subject of debate. However, don't stand for Mayor = no point standing for GLA because you are not invited to hustings and do not get free publicity into letterboxes. So the issue is whether Livingstone has overstepped the mark to deserve a hard campaign rather than a 'friendly' candidature. Recall that RESPECT urge second preference votes to go to him (that's a subject of debate too)

I just still think that it probably was a tactical error on RESPECT's part. Livingstone is still a popular politican, particularly among ethnic minorities. For respect to run against him and propagandise against him will probably alienate potential support and won't do them any favours in the long run.

Here's some fairly good analysis:

http://socialistunity.blogspot.com/2007/04/should-respect-challenge-ken.html

 

[Udo Erasmus]

Is this the Ken Livingstone who pretends to be left but at key points will prop up the establishment.

For example, on 7.7 July bombings Livingstone played a key role in propping up Blair by refusing to link terrorism with British foreign policy instead echoing Blair's talk an evil ideology.

Livingstone doesn't like RESPECT he campaigned for Oona King coming out with the slimy line that Galloway shouldn't stand against a Black-Jewish MP (presumably he thinks that elections should be uncontested).

Why think that RESPECT propagandising against him is a bad thing. It might force the election onto a more left wing terrain, if Livingstone doesn't have any left wing challengers he doesn't have to worry about the left wing vote because it has nowhere to go and can therefore be as right wing as he likes

 

[chilango]

Respect has every right to challenge Livingstone.

 

[JoePolitix]

Is this the Ken Livingstone who pretends to be left but at key points will prop up the establishment.

For example, on 7.7 July bombings Livingstone played a key role in propping up Blair by refusing to link terrorism with British foreign policy instead echoing Blair's talk an evil ideology.

Livingstone doesn't like RESPECT he campaigned for Oona King coming out with the slimy line that Galloway shouldn't stand against a Black-Jewish MP (presumably he thinks that elections should be uncontested).

Why think that RESPECT propagandising against him is a bad thing. It might force the election onto a more left wing terrain, if Livingstone doesn't have any left wing challengers he doesn't have to worry about the left wing vote because it has nowhere to go and can therefore be as right wing as he likes

I seriously doubt it Udo - Livingstone won't be trying to out-left respect because you stand no chance of beating him. The only thing that you could realistically achieve is to poach enough votes off him to allow a tory candidate to slip through the net in a tightly contested election (given that only 25% of respect voters cast a 2nd preference for Livingstone in the last election).

I say that the decision to run and propogandise against Ken is a mistake is that given that Respect's main electoral base is among muslims who are generally supportive of Ken its likely that this will alienate alot of your support base/potential support base (your former allies in the BMI have already voiced their opposition as has reportedly Salma Yaqoob).

There's also the issue of that Lindsey German as convenor of Stop the War Coalition standing as a candidate against a leading anti-war politician and the damage that might do to the unity of the anti-war movement.

As for your comments about the 7/7 bombings and Oona King - frankly I just think they're silly.

 

[JoePolitix]

Respect has every right to challenge Livingstone.

At least you're consistant in your principles - consistantly wrong though

The debate isn't about the abstract "right" to run candidates but about tactics and principles. Standing to advance the interests of the particular group you represent above all other considerations is sectarian.

 

[butchersapron]

And Livingstone represents the best interests of the collective london working class? Because a bunch of trots in the labour party, last breath stalinists and a bristol trot reckons so? Go home everyone else. It's already been decided. Nothing to see here.

It's odd how frequently things become 'abstract' when you're challenged isn't it? You're accidentally right (but only by virtue of allowing your pompous rhetoric a little bit too free a reign). It IS about principles - the principle of breaking the grip of auto-labourism. And not on left-behind vote labour vote labour drongos like yourself - but of the working class.

 

[JoePolitix]

And Livingstone represents the best interests of the collective london working class? Because a bunch of trots in the labour party, last breath stalinists and a bristol trot reckons so? Go home everyone else. It's already been decided. Nothing to see here.

It's odd how frequently things become 'abstract' when you're challenged isn't it? You're accidentally right (but only by virtue of allowing your pompous rhetoric a little bit too free a reign). It IS about principles - the principle of breaking the grip of auto-labourism. And not on left-behind vote labour vote labour drongos like yourself - but of the working class.

And what outcome of the London mayoral elections is in the "best interests of the working class"? Seeing as you hate 'abstract' debate I'm sure you have a very concrete answer.

 

[butchersapron]

And what outcome of the London mayoral elections is in the "best interests of the working class"? Seeing as you hate 'abstract' debate I'm sure you have a very concrete answer.

I don't hate abstract debate, i love it. I do hate people trying to use that term that as a cover for their feeble minded lack of political bottle. If you think voting for a mayor who calls for people to scab on strikes is in the interests of the london working class or for a party that's imposed the conditions that are leading to the growth of the far-right, or if you think that not pointing this out to the knuckle-heads who think the labour party is in some sense on our side is acceptable and realistic then frankly, you've learnt nothing politically from the last 20 years and you're probably incapable of learning anything poltically over the next 20 years.

Concrete answer - labour/lib dem/tory, they'll all seek to impose the same conditions under pressure from global capital, esp under the competition that contemporary capitalism has placed large international cities under. Get cracking on building local networks and communities - not old trot and stalinist internal battles. Fuck your left.

 

[butchersapron]

"Ken" bleurgh *vomits* - describes the comfortable happy little stich-ups, corruption and clientelism that leftist pygmies like joe could live with forever in one handy little word doesn't it?