open Democracy News Analysis - London's mayor and the Left, Jeremy Gilbert - Comments

Jeremy.Gilbert on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Jeremy.Gilbert — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:08:12 +0100

Thanks Michael!

Actually, you're right about the title - my original title was simply 'A Vote Against Politics' but that would have been a bit obscure for casual browsers, I suppose, and I didn't think through the consequences oh the new one fully. As regards the rest of your points - we're in complete agreement, I think. Indeed, if one were to make a critique of the kind of economic strategies with which Ken has been associated, it would have to turn on the extent to which the legacy of the Alternative Economic Strategy, the work he did with people like Jonathan Michie in the 80s, and the associated work that came out of the Conference of Socialist Economists around the same time, never did did seem to get far beyond the idea of the nation-state as the container for capital. Ken's dismissive attitude to the anticapitalist 'alterglobalisation' movement becomes extremely problematic here, because that 'movement' for all of its problems, is at least predicated on the recognition that progressive political organisation must have an international dimension.

Michael Collins on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Michael Collins — Sat, 31 May 2008 21:39:00 +0100

Hi there Jeremy. My apologies: I felt that the title of the piece - ‘What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left’ – plus the final section on ‘The Realities of Power’ were quite future oriented, but I was a bit hasty. I merely meant to suggest that given the globalised nature of capital, your comments about ‘a revival of democracy, a genuine attempt to reconfigure and reinvent local government, trade-unionism and political participation for the 21st century’ might have also mention Europe, or beyond. It seems to me that this revival you speak of – which is undoubtedly needed – should take place within a public sphere and political framework wider than that of the nation-state; one that can act as a genuine counter-weight to the power of global capital. I certainly didn’t intend to demean trade unionism. But my assumption is that trade unionism – and social democratic politics as a whole – must have a strong international dimension. My thinking wasn’t intended as criticism: I was just navigating a small tributary of the rushing stream of ideas you set in motion!

Jeremy.Gilbert on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Jeremy.Gilbert — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:26:21 +0100

Janet - I think you are right! And thanks very much for these highly pertinent questions.

There's no doubt in my mind that if there is any future for democracy in this country, then organisations like COF, and the others that you mention, will be integral to it. COF have achieved some very real victories already, and it was them who made the Living Wage campaign happen (Ken just supported it - which was better than not supporting it, of course). In their various incarnations (first as TELCO, then as London Citizens), COF have done some really innovative work, and will no doubt continue to do so, and if the Olympics DO end up bringing any benefit to people in East London at all, then it will be largely because of their lobbying and organising. I do think there are severe limitations to their model of working, but I don't really want to get into making any public criticisms of them because they are so good at what they do, and it really is for other kinds of organisation to come along and do the things that they can't.

I think there is still a big political space where parties used to be, which can make the links between such grassroots campaigns, the formal political process and a wider public realm of ideas and debate, and we will need to keep working fill that space in various ways (whether through the renewal of parties or other mechanisms), and projects like Open Democracy have an important part to play here. But there's no question that right now, COF, TT etc. are the organisations which are still demonstrating that collective organisation can actually deliver effective change for people, in ways that the celebrity-politics circuit can't and never will be able to.

Jeremy.Gilbert on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Jeremy.Gilbert — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:09:19 +0100

Thank you very much Louise!

I'm inclined to share your scepticism about the real value of the Olympics. I suppose that bringing them to London was widely seen as a victory, which made Ken's defeat more surprising, but perhaps the fact that it was so difficult to believe that this would really be a victory for the people Ken was supposed to represent partly explains why they didn't turn out for him. I also suspect that Ken and his team assumed that the election was going to be 'in the bag' from the moment the decision to award the games to London was announced, which would be another reason why they didn't mobilise a more aggressive campaign.

Janet Toye on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Janet Toye — Fri, 30 May 2008 13:00:36 +0100

I agree with the analysis of this article, the underlying factor being the power of money and financial institutions. New Labour - which would be better called Thatcherite Labour - has cooperated enthusiastically with the aims and interests of big business.

I wonder what your thoughts are, Jeremy, about current grassroots movements such as the Citizens' Organising Foundation, Transition Towns, and the Independent Asylum Commission. The COF in London apparently successfully put pressure on Ken himself over social housing, and is given credit for getting a statement from all four mayor of London candidates in support of regularising illegal immigrants (Straners Into Citizens campaign). The IAC in its first report has published responses it got from the HO (or Borders Agency as it's currently calling itself), thus starting up something that looks like a dialogue even if the HO comments are mainly ludicrous. Given that one of the problems in trying to influence 'the powers that be' is their inaccessibility I think this is an achievement. (MPs can feel as disempowered as the rest of us. Jon Cruddas, a campaigner for the rights of asylum seekers, asked whether Brown and his inner circle know what goes on in the asylum world, said he didn't know anyone in the inner circle.)

I am getting involved in such grassroots activities because it seems worth trying. What do you think?

Louise Lappin on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Louise Lappin — Wed, 28 May 2008 21:36:03 +0100

Thank you for such an insightful critique of Boris Johnson’s
rise to Mayor and the public personas that realised his challenge. What a sad
state of affairs to accept apathetic buffoonery as a form of political a-representation.

Your links between Boris’ public image and how the capitalist media denounces collectivity as a viable, sustainable and productive option for social engagement makes for very interesting reading. Boris, as you suggest, epitomises the commercial ‘rights’ or rather ‘givens’ of the over-privileged. And I couldn’t agree more that this win marks a cultural acceptance of the
sentiment that politics holds no meaning in the lives many London citizens – a sentiment which provides a clear vote against those who embrace democratic community living within the capital, and a vote for those who live with capital and wish to expand their own independent financial ownership of it without the burden of the community. This win for Boris is a vote of silence to the voices of London’s poorest and most underprivileged communities.

The one thing I would contest is your mention of Ken’s support of London’s Olympic bid. The Olympics is the ultimate accolade of capital: it is a vote for the privatisation of public space, a vote for the forces of global capital, and vote that undermined Ken’s socialist principles.

Many thanks for what was an inspirational and enlightening read!

Jeremy.Gilbert on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Jeremy.Gilbert — Tue, 27 May 2008 16:02:06 +0100

Thanks for the comments, Michael. But I'm a bit mystified by some of the criticisms. This isn't 'an article about the future of the left',so criticising it for lacking something that such an article should contain seems a little unfair. Also, I'm not sure where 'the talk of old style labour movements' actually appears in my piece - I argue that a' genuine attempt to reconfigure and reinvent local government, trade-unionism and political participation for the 21st century' would be necessary to revive democracy: reconfiguration, not revival. This comment seems to come from a position which implicitly assumes that any labour movement, simply by being virtue of a labour movement, would necessarily be 'old style'. I just don't accept that - the de-politicisation of work on the current political scene is a consequence of the defeat of old models of labour organisation, but the challenge is to find new models, not simply to give up on the whole idea of organised labour.

The point that London is as in thrall to global capital as it ever was is a very good one, but one of the things that was so refreshing about Ken was that he was quite willing to acknowledge this situation, and to acknowledge that, as a socialist, he found it regrettable, but that he had to work within the confines of the political realities he faced. This was completely different from new Labour's determination to sell us globalised financialised capitalism as the best of all possible worlds. Well, I think it's completely different. This is probably the most vulnerable element of my defence of Ken. I think it actually makes a massive difference whether our leaders say 'globalised finance capital is brilliant' or 'globalised finance capital is the only game in town so we'll have to work with them'. But that may not be a persuasive argument to many people. Here is an extract from an interview that Doreen Massey did with Ken covering some of these issues: http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/debates/left_futures17.html

On the internationalism issue: Ken's deal with Chavez to get cheap oil for London buses has been derided by his critics as a stunt, but it was this deal that made feasible the extension of free bus travel to young people. What more do you want from a mayor with such limited scope and powers as Ken had?

Jeremy.Gilbert on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Jeremy.Gilbert — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:04:19 +0100

Thanks for the comment from Peter.

I'm not sure I do underestimate Boris, because my argument here was purely about the nature of the public persona which he has projected, not about Boris' real qualities as a politician or anything else. Clearly, his successful projection of that persona was effective, and so reveals a real political talent which his opponents thus far have underestimated to their cost.

Michael Collins on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Michael Collins — Sat, 24 May 2008 23:03:46 +0100

A very interesting and provocative piece. The ‘anti-politics machine’ personified by Boris Johnson is spot on. But the talk of old style labour movements, whilst laudable and all, seems somewhat anachronistic. The optimism about what Ken might have stood for is also somehow unconvincing. Ken talked a good fight, but London is as much in thrall to global capital as it was 10 years ago, probably even more so. The missing link here might be ‘international’. The left is unlikely to achieve much unless it learns to mobilise across borders. In the British – or English – case, this means dealing with our seclusion within the EU. Reading an article about the future of the left, I’m surprised that this issue is entirely absent.

Anthony Barnett on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Anthony Barnett — Fri, 23 May 2008 18:08:18 +0100

Peter Oborne has just emailed me saying:
Thank you for this thought-provoking article. I very much like the opposition he creates between the media endorsed celebrity politician, vehicle of selfish corporate interests, and the public domain. I think he underestimates the extent to which Ken Livingstone himself hollowed out public space in London, for example by allowing local government to be purchased wholesale by key lobbying interests (quangos run by his political supporters, planning consents gifted to key donors). And I hope that he grievously underestimates Boris.

Ray Bell on "What Mayor Boris Johnson signals for the Left"

Ray Bell — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:43:43 +0100

The one aspect of Boris that I respect is that he is a character. You can't say that about many politicians.

So is Red Ken, I suppose. Most candidates in politics these days are faceless.

I don't agree with Boris at all, but I don't think he can ever be accused of blandness.

London's mayor and the Left, Jeremy Gilbert

Jeremy.Gilbert — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:46:11 +0100

This is the first in our new OK In Depth essays. It's long (4,500 words) and sets out a framework for what is arguably the most important electoral change in England since 1997. The pdf function for printing it (and the email to a friend) are at the end.

On 1 May Ken Livingstone - arguably the most intelligent political operator on the left in Britain and a bold, relatively principled and creative politician whose originality greatly exceeds that of Tony Blair - was defeated by Boris Johnson in a direct election to be Mayor of London. Johnson was known as an entertaining character (like ‘Ken', he is usually known by his short given name), but one who was so unreliable he had already been expelled from the Conservative shadow cabinet. So how did he win?

Read the rest of this post...