With the London Mayoral Elections approaching, many socialists will feel conflicted. On the one hand, we have the opportunity to remove Boris Johnson, the Tory incumbent who has spent the last year hiking fares, cutting services and making clear his desire to curtail the rights of trade unionists. On the other hand, in most elections anyway, many socialists feel reluctant to call for a Labour vote. In contrast, in the absence of decent, properly-based independent working-class/socialist candidates, the AWL is in favour of voting Labour - because, despite all the changes, Labour is still a 'bourgeois workers' party', linked to the trade unions. This does not mean we should have any illusions about the party's record, nor about the spectacularly misnamed 'Red Ed'.
In this particular election the picture is complicated by the Labour candidate - Ken Livingstone. Even some generally reluctant to vote Labour feel greater sympathy towards Livingstone. Why?
Livingstone has a reputation for being a leftist rebel, a maverick among senior Labour politicians dissenting from the Blairite/Brownite orthodoxy. In a very limited sense, this is true. He has shown a willingness to mouth off and speak his mind that marks him out from many of his peers, the majority of whom seem horrified at the very thought of contradicting the party line, except perhaps from the right. But beyond this, his left-wing reputation very quickly wears thin, in fact serving to hide a far less palatable reality. It was this 'left-wing' mayor that, in 2000, campaigned on a platform of resisting privatisation of the Tube, only to go ahead and privatise parts of it. The same 'left-winger' later appealed to Tube workers to cross picket lines, snuggled up to big business and further demonstrated himself to be, far from a socialist dissenter, yet another politician for whom membership of Labour doesn't entail support for the cause of the working class.
When he ran the GLC in the 1980s, Livingstone may have had a better line in rhetoric, but whether he was fundamentally more radical is doubtful. This was the leader who backed down in the face of confrontation with the Thatcher government and the courts, and sacked his left-wing deputy John McDonnell because he led those who wanted to fight. (In 2007, Livingstone not only backed Gordon Brown against John McDonnell for Labour leader, but argued there shouldn't be an election at all. He got his wish!)
If Livingstone is elected, we have every reason to believe he will continue in the same mould of capitulation and cynicism as before, but this doesn't mean there aren't significant difference between having him in City Hall and having Boris Johnson. Johnson attacks the labour movement and the conditions of working people nakedly and in the full knowledge that his backers in finance, government and the bourgeois media are full square behind him. This kind of class-warfare is his raison d'etre, not something he lapses into when its the easiest way out or when he thinks no ones looking. When he does it, he does what the Tories were set up to do and always have done. In contrast, Livingstone, even at his worst, is far more subject to the pressure that the organised working class can exert against him. The Labour Party he represents relies on the wider labour movement for votes and financial sustenance, and organised workers have a say, however small and diminished, in the running of Labour in a way they will never have in the Tory Party.
In the end, though, a Labour mayor will only be as good as we can force them to be. If Livingstone is to be any better than his predecessor, it will rely on our work in unions, among students and in communities to make our demands heard and the pressure of our organised power felt. Vote Labour, don't fall into illusions about Livingstone, and organise to fight.
Comments
TUSC?
Where TUSC candidates are running against Labour candidates - who will the AWL be calling on workers to vote for?
Labour
Why would we advocate a vote for a not very left-wing Socialist Party front? (If it was just the SP, who at least sometimes talk about socialism, we could talk...)
Sacha Ismail
Why advocate a vote for the not at all left wing Labour?
Why would you call for a vote for Labour instead of TUSC?
TUSC is far from a SP front, with a number of other socialist parties involved as well as key trade unionists from the likes of the RMT and the PCS (which is seeking to become a lot more involved in electoral politics).
Of course Tusc is left wing and socialist to its core. All TUSC canidates elected would refuse to implement any cuts, something not even the most left wing of Labour canidates would dream of doing.
So it appears the AWl would rather call for people to vote for a party that would implement cuts and push forward privitisation then a truly independent working class coalition?
Can you explain why you would prefer Labour over TUSC apart from the fact you are not currently in TUSC?
Ryan H
Voting
" it appears the AWl would rather call for people to vote for a party that would implement cuts and push forward privitisation then a truly independent working class coalition?"
I'm not sure if 'the socialist guy' is in the SP or not, but assuming you are, you'll have to do a lot better than that kind of argument.
For years, nay decades, the predecessors of the SP were in the Labour Party, routinely having to respond to (or, usually, ignore) precisely that argument from other socialists - for instance, just as a for instance, in 1979, when it was a matter of voting for Callaghan's Labour government (about to fall because of the Winter of Discontent), rather than Socialist Unity.
There is of course a legitimate debate to be had about voting in the Mayoral or other elections. But please leave out 'AAARGH! IT'S THE LABOUR PARTY! IT'S BAD!'
But Labour is bad...
Yes I am in the Socialist Party and yes our predecessors were in the Labour Party, though its been over 20 years since we were and lots of changes for the worse have happened to the Labour Party.
The fact is Labour if elected would implement brutal and unnecessary cuts as well as continue there privatisation agenda. On the otherhand TUSC canidates if elected would refuse to implement cuts, reverse privatisation and fight for the intrests of the Working Class as a whole.
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is why does our fellow socialist organisation, the AWl prefer Labour over TUSC?
Can the AWL give clear reasons for this?
Ryan H
Yes
Yes, I understood your point. My point is that you could have said in 1979 that this was an extremely anti-working class Labour government and it would be much better if Socialist Unity got elected.
It's true, of course, that the Labour Party has evolved since then, and that is certainly a valid consideration in making a decision about whether to support them in elections. But the argument should be about actual concrete assessments, not moralistic exhortations.
Socialist Unity?
Are you claiming that the 1979 forerunner of the AWL (the ICL?)supported Socialist Unity in the general election? I really don't think so. Not that Socialist Unity could have got elected, as a government, since there were only a dozen candidates.
I would suggest that the ICL was in alliance with the Chartists and elements of the Labour left (inc. Livingstone) in an alliance called the Socialist Campaign for Labour Victory. That was the grouping that launched Socialist Organiser.
"Are you claiming that the
"Are you claiming that the 1979 forerunner of the AWL (the ICL?)supported Socialist Unity in the general election? I really don't think so."
No. As you say, we supported the SCLV. I was talking about the logic and force of the argument coming from the SP.
Use of Quotes
"But the argument should be about actual concrete assessments, not moralistic exhortations."
I agree, if you look at the Labour Party standing in London this year, ignoring for a moment their historical baggage, but just assess their policies, thier class make up and what they would do upon being elected. Now compare that to TUSC, surely the choice for who socialists should vote for is obvious.
And I'm still yet to see actual reasons why AWL call for a Labour vote over TUSC.
Ryan H
Elections
Does TUSC have better policies than Labour? Yes.
Does the Green Party have better policies than Labour? Yes.
Did the Lib Dems in 2005 have better policies than Labour? Yes, on a lot of issues they did.
Presumably Ryan would never advocate a vote for the Greens or the Lib Dems (I hope), so let's establish a basic parameter in the debate that your assessment of a given candidate's paper policies is not the only electoral consideration for socialists.
We consider candidates, and the parties/organisations they represent, in their totality, not just in terms of the policies on which they're standing (although this is one factor) but in terms of what they represent in relation to the broad labour movement and what channels exist for working-class people - in the first place through our unions - to exert political pressure and accountability over them.
Our assessment of TUSC is that it is a narrow Socialist Party front and party-building exercise. TUSC candidates are propaganda candidates, and when candidates are standing solely to make propaganda (rather than as part of a significant national political force that could pose a governmental alternative), judging them on their propaganda becomes a greater element in the mix. And TUSC's propaganda is pretty mushy. It's not sharp, class-combat, socialist politics; as far as I can see it's lowest-common-denominator anti-cuts stuff.
The Labour Party, on the other hand, is a mass party that retains a structural link to the majority of organised workers in this country through the affiliation of our unions. It is not a straightforwardly capitalist party like the US Democrats, and by returning Labour MPs, AMs, councillors etc. we create at least the potential for workers to exert direct political pressure on those people in an organised, structured way through the Labour-union link.
Our perspective is about working out how the broad labour movement, as a whole, can intervene in politics. And despite recent macho-posturing in the media from senior bureaucrats (which is entirely contentless), saying "we should disaffiliate from Labour and affiliate to TUSC" is not really a serious political argument in any affiliated trade union.
Obviously, your organisation doesn't share that analysis of the Labour Party (as far as I can tell, your assessment seems to be that it switched from being a bourgeois-workers' party to a straightforwardly bourgeois party more-or-less overnight after the Militant was expelled, which apart from anything else betrays a profoundly sectarian attitude to politics). But can we at least have the debate on that terrain (i.e. is the Labour Party a bourgeois-workers' party or not?), rather than on the basis of your outrage (real or feigned) that we would vote for a party with bad policies over a party with better ones? Can we accept that the political platform of a given candidate is only one consideration amongst several (that may be of greater or lesser significance depending on the nature of the candidacy)?
And if you want to convince us that TUSC is not an SP front but in fact an organisation with a healthy democratic culture, local groups that are accessible to all and not simply controlled by the local SP branch, and that its propaganda clearly advocates in a sharp fashion for class struggle and workers' government then please do. I'd be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong.
-
Daniel Randall
When?
Ryan,
At what point do you think Labour qualitatively changed its class character, ie ceased being what you agree it was in 1979, a bourgeois workers' party socialists could advocate a vote for, and became a "straight" bourgeois party? As I understand, Militant's analysis amounted to saying that the change came around the time they were expelled and suppressed - the end of the 80s. Do you really think that is coherent or plausible?
(The point here, as I hope is clear, is not to deny that there have been significant shifts and changes within Labour since 1979.)
Sacha Ismail
Livingstone
Also, are you advocating a vote for Livingstone? If not, I understand. If so, logically, why?
Sacha
Response
First TUSC is far from an SP front, if you look at the canidates standing for the GLA nearly all are non SP members and are most infact independent Trade Unionists including the President of the RMT plus people who sit on the NEC of Unison,FBU, NUT,UCU, as well as trade unionists from other Unions. Yes TUSC is still in its infancy but the potential is there. The TUSC confrence that was held this weekend saw a lot more independent trade union and socialist activists in attendence. Theres has also been an independent socialist network set up within TUSC.
As for the Labour-Union link, quite frankly I don't see how an ordinary Union member as any real influnce over Labour politicians. The working class have just as much influence over the Labour Party then they would in any other capitalist party.
The reality is we need to break from this lesser of 2 evils mindset, that it appears the AWL are still stuck in. This argument of "Oh Labour is better then the Tories" is the same that was had when the Labour Party was established and people argued that the working class should stick with the Liberals. We should be supporting independent Socialist/Working Class canidates which is exactly what TUSC is.
You keep replying with questions for me to answer, all I want to know is why you will not support TUSC instead of the Labour Party.
Nothing is going to change if we all just keep calling for a Labour Vote, we need to form independent working class representation and the reality is TUSC is the closet thing to that in the UK and instead of complaining why not even join in helping build it.
Ryan H
As I was saying...
Ryan,
I thought I had answered your question about why the AWL calls for a Labour vote instead of supporting TUSC. I wrote:
"Our assessment of TUSC is that it is a narrow Socialist Party front and party-building exercise. TUSC candidates are propaganda candidates, and when candidates are standing solely to make propaganda (rather than as part of a significant national political force that could pose a governmental alternative), judging them on their propaganda becomes a greater element in the mix. And TUSC's propaganda is pretty mushy. It's not sharp, class-combat, socialist politics; as far as I can see it's lowest-common-denominator anti-cuts stuff.
The Labour Party, on the other hand, is a mass party that retains a structural link to the majority of organised workers in this country through the affiliation of our unions. It is not a straightforwardly capitalist party like the US Democrats, and by returning Labour MPs, AMs, councillors etc. we create at least the potential for workers to exert direct political pressure on those people in an organised, structured way through the Labour-union link.
Our perspective is about working out how the broad labour movement, as a whole, can intervene in politics. And despite recent macho-posturing in the media from senior bureaucrats (which is entirely contentless), saying "we should disaffiliate from Labour and affiliate to TUSC" is not really a serious political argument in any affiliated trade union.
Obviously, your organisation doesn't share that analysis of the Labour Party (as far as I can tell, your assessment seems to be that it switched from being a bourgeois-workers' party to a straightforwardly bourgeois party more-or-less overnight after the Militant was expelled, which apart from anything else betrays a profoundly sectarian attitude to politics). But can we at least have the debate on that terrain (i.e. is the Labour Party a bourgeois-workers' party or not?), rather than on the basis of your outrage (real or feigned) that we would vote for a party with bad policies over a party with better ones? Can we accept that the political platform of a given candidate is only one consideration amongst several (that may be of greater or lesser significance depending on the nature of the candidacy)?
And if you want to convince us that TUSC is not an SP front but in fact an organisation with a healthy democratic culture, local groups that are accessible to all and not simply controlled by the local SP branch, and that its propaganda clearly advocates in a sharp fashion for class struggle and workers' government then please do. I'd be absolutely delighted to be proved wrong."
I get that your organisation disagrees with our analysis; I've invited you to offer an alternative one (which you haven't really done; you've just said that TUSC is more left-wing than Labour and people should vote for them on that basis).
It's fine that you disagree but I don't think it's quite fair to say that we haven't adequately explained our position.
-
Daniel Randall