In defence of comrade Bright

Martin Bright, political editor of the New Statesman, has a fine post on his blog about the London mayoral election (and note the angry interventions in the comments threads by what appear to be fraternal correspondents from the Church of Scientology). This is what he says:

"Interesting to read the full text of the "Unite for Ken" letter that appeared in the Guardian earlier this week with 100 prominent signatories giving their support to the mayor. I have always thought Boris Johnson was a peculiar candidate for the Conservative Party to choose, but it seems that he really has got City Hall running scared. I must say I find it amusing that Livingstone, who stood against the Labour Party in 2000, is now the darling of tribalists within the party. There was a time when such treachery would not have been tolerated. The letter, sponsored by the think-tank Compass, is emblematic of the muddle-headed "lesser of two evils" argument that has bedevilled the left for so long.

"One apocalyptic phrase I do agree with, however, is this: "This isn't just about the politics of London but a battle between the forces of progress versus reaction in the nation as a whole". For me, this is true whether Johnson or Livingstone wins. The progressive answer to this conundrum would be to find a genuinely progressive candidate to represent Labour."

There are many reasons that Ken Livingstone is unfit for office, but the most fundamental is that he lacks a sense of public service. Few recall that Livingstone became leader of the Greater London Council in the 1980s without any reference to, or consultation with, London's voters. Labour fought the election campaign for the GLC in 1981 under the leadership of the moderate Andrew (now Lord) McIntosh. Immediately after Labour had won that election, a cabal of the Labour group on the GLC replaced McIntosh with Livingstone. As GLC leader, Livingstone dispensed patronage and intervened in national politics without accountability and with much public largesse. As mayor, he has merely resumed these inglorious practices, as - I briefly preen myself - I was one of the first to predict. (The day after Livingstone's election in 2000 I was strolling through the Broadgate Circle at lunchtime when I was accosted by a BBC television crew. Evidently they were seeking reaction from some braying City toff, but for some reason alighted on me instead. I was delighted nonetheless to give them my opinion on Livingstone for a couple of minutes without drawing breath, but I fear that only the initial assertion rather than the supporting evidence was broadcast.)

It is, as Martin says, a matter of shame to many figures of the ostensibly radical wing of politics that they're prepared to sign up to Livingstone's campaign where "anyone who has a progressive bone in their body should have run a mile". (The signatories to the pro-Livingstone letter include, I note, Kate Hudson, chairman of CND and a member of a party that explicitly declares solidarity with the totalitarian nightmare-state of North Korea.) I strongly endorse Martin's view that there should be a progressive candidate against the discredited Mayor and his plainly unserious Tory opponent. I can only repeat: Oona is the obvious candidate. I plead with her to run; I urge you, if you have a vote, to write her name on the ballot paper.

Comments

[Norman Tebbit's bycycle repair man]

a matter of shame to many figures of the ostensibly radical wing of politics that they're prepared to sign up to Livingstone's campaign where "anyone who has a progressive bone in their body should have run a mile".

Wrong. Some of us did a lot to try to stop Livingstone in 2000 and voted for him with heavy hearts in 2004. But politics is about choices and there is no third choice here who is going to beat Johnson.

It is reasonable to say that you prefer Johnson to Livingstone. It's not reasonable to pretend that not voting for Livingstone as either first or second preference is helping elect Johnson.

(Also, this is why Labour tribalists will be supporting Livingstone - the alternative is worse).

It is also bizarre that Bright and co - who claim they voted for Livingstone in disgust at how the Labour machine "stitched him up" in 2000 now demand ever more shrilly that such a thing be done again. Sorry, comrades, you had your chance, you called it wrong and nobody is going to releave you of the choice between Livingstone and Johnson.

[C Powell]

The most fundamental reason for not voting for him is NOT that he lacks a sense of public service, though that is true. It is that he has aligned himself with some of the most anti-progressive forces in the world today, most notably, fundamentalist Muslims such as Sheikh Quradawi. This what the Left too often does and the fact that he is supported by the likes of Kate Hudson and others who, similarly, support such anti-democratic / anti-liberal forces should scarcely come as a surprise to you. In doing so, like all such appeasers, he puts Londoners at greater risk of being killed or harmed by those forces.

[Miv Tucker]

Last month the Camden New Journal lambasted Mr Bright for his profile of Ken Livingstone: even so, one of the very few things they could find to say in Livingstone's favour was that he had greatly improved London's bus services, which was unhealthily reminiscent of what people used to say of an earlier anti-democrat.

I wrote to the CNJ making more-or-less the same points that Mr Kamm is making here, so I'm delighted to see that they are getting the wider airing they deserve.

For some reason the CNJ declined to publish my letter, so here it is now:

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

Praising Ken Livingstone for apparently improving the bus service ("A rant that was blind to Ken's achievements", CNJ 24.1.08) smacks rather unpleasantly of praising Mussolini for making the trains run on time, and it argues much that that was the best you could find to say.

The fact is that Livingstone is a proven thief (he and his Trotskyite chums stole the 1981 GLC election from the moderate Andrew McIntosh), liar (he consistently misrepresented his intentions about running for mayor to the Labour Party), and racist (he made anti-Semitic remarks to Oliver Finegold, the Evening Standard reporter, as well as to the Reuben brothers). He also embraces terrorists of every stripe from the IRA to Yusuf al Qaradawi, the homophobic, misogynistic, anti-Semitic preacher of hate and head of the Muslim Brotherhood, and brutal dictators such as Castro.

And, so far from improving the buses, Livingstone even lied about preserving the Routemaster bus by going on to abolish it.

And then there is the small matter of corruption in the Mayor's office.

In a saner society Livingstone would have been run out town years ago and not allowed within a mile of any conceivable lever of power.

[Andy]

I've been wondering who to vote for in this election, given that so many of the candidates are simply awful. I shall take your advice Oliver - i'll vote for Oona!

[Matthew]

"Few recall that Livingstone became leader of the Greater London Council in the 1980s without any reference to, or consultation with, London's voters."

It was publicly known though that he was going to challenge for the leadership after the election.

[SteveF]

Miv,

Given the sheer volume of correspondence in the CNJ, it is quite remarkable they didn't publish your letter. They seem to publish pretty much everything else. Perhaps the letters page was being edited by the late Rose Hacker?

[szeni]

Comment deleted.

[Oliver Kamm]

Szeni, I've (very unusually) removed that comment because of its abusive aspersions on Oona King. If you'd like to resubmit it without the particular phrasing that I object to, please do.