More on London

The post immediately below this one is an attempt to explain to a predominantly American audience the phenomenon of Ken Livingstone and why many on the British Left find him exceptionable. Tony Blair's handling of the Livingstone saga was unprincipled from the outset. Livingstone ought to have been expelled from party membership long before the farcical selection procedure that installed the hapless Frank Dobson as mayoral candidate in 2000. Worse still was Blair's cynically welcoming Livingstone back to the party to run under the Labour banner in 2004.

Livingstone has had the extraordinary political luck to be opposed by people who have made grave strategic errors. As I recall in the post below, it was Mrs Thatcher who turned Livingstone into a popular campaigner by allowing him to present his grossly mismanaged administration at the GLC as an expression of local democracy. Livingstone was not even elected as leader of the GLC - or at least not by the voters, but only by a caucus of Labour members of the GLC.

Livingstone's aims were not in the improvement of London's government, however. He expended much energy in targeting and eventually replacing the left-wing Labour MP for Brent East, Reg Freeson. One of my abiding memories of watching the 1987 general election results on television was of Livingstone, early in the evening, hubristically explaining to Sir Robin Day that Labour had sent campaigners out of the constituency in order to tackle neighbouring and more marginal seats. As it turned out, Livingstone nearly lost the seat to the Tory candidate, a heavily pregnant Harriet Crawley (who was unmarried, a circumstance that at that time would have caused controversy among Conservative supporters). Had the Tories attracted more of the 5,000 votes won by the youthful SDP candidate, whose name for the moment escapes me, then Livingstone's political career would have been deservedly killed off then and there.

I attended on Monday the Sky News mayoral debate. I came away hostile to Livingstone and deeply unimpressed by the other candidates. The most dispiriting part of the discussion came in a question on multiculturalism. I've made this point elsewhere, so quote myself:

Mr Livingstone asserts “a responsibility to support the rights of all of London’s diverse communities”. But Londoners are not communities. People belong to groups, but for civic purposes they are citizens who are equals under law. The notion that democratic politics celebrates group identities leads to the absurdity of a left-wing politician literally embracing a leader of theocratic, xenophobic reaction.

On the evidence of the debate, none of the candidates agrees with me. But celebrating London's cosmopolitan character is not the same as entrenching interest groups and religious lobbies in civic life.

Comments

[Mark]

Ollie

If NONE of the other candidates agree with your pretty unexceptioanble point then we really are in trouble!

[Matthew]

If we're goinng to blame D.Finkelstein for Livinstone, I'm going to blame you for George Osborne...

[ortega]

The ultimate point is that many on the democratic left are disposed to vote an stalinist with the only argument, it seems the only available to today's left, that he is not from the right.
The left asking to be voted for what it is not.

[Benjamin]

Hi Oliver,

I do find it very difficult to get this worked up about Livingstone. Looking at his policies, he's a mildly social democratic politician, who's been a reasonably successful mayor of London, a city with its fair share of problems (as well as many attractions).

Your comments about his leadership of the GLC are moot. The leader of the GLC was never a directly elected politician; parties gained control of the council in the familiar way, standing on manifestos, and the leader came from the controlling party group.

Okay, there is a slight issue in that Labour campaigned under one leader and then transferred power to another, but it seems a pretty obscure point. They still went on to try to implement the manifesto they campaigned on.

[dirigible]

Okay, there is a slight issue in that Labour campaigned under one leader and then transferred power to another, but it seems a pretty obscure point.

I always get told off for making this point about Brown. I find the responses only factually correct.

Anyone who thinks that Boris will want to appear racist, anti-business, or any of the other criticisms that not acting like Livingstone will lay him open to is delusional. Boris will commit all Ken's sins and pursue Tory social policy as well.

[Barry Larking]

Livingstone's departure is one crumb of comfort in the bleak years which I believe are coming into view. One should never forget that Livingstone flew to Los Angeles, California, to defend in court an IRA Sinn Fein gunman fighting extradition to England to face charges of murdering by shooting a uniformed unarmed London policeman.

He has been aided in London by some brilliant staff who have developed ideas in transport and infrastructure. In no small measure the rise and rise of the City of London induced by Thatcher's Revolution played to his advantage. Subsequently he exploited his celebrity to forge an identifiably separate foreign policy for London, one which has now been exposed and rejected. It amazes me he lost by so small a margin, an achievement which must be due to his principal opponent.

Will he now leave the scene? I fear not. A capacity for vanity coupled with an unscrupulous political nature will not quit the scene. Backs are there to be stabbed and Ken the Knife is now free as air.