The world is run by monsters and you have to deal with them. Some of them run countries, some of them run banks, some of them run news corporations.That seems, to me, to sum up his whole career. He doesn't want to slay the monsters, but work with them: Jack the Giant Facilitator.Now, we might want to ask how the ogres come to power? How it is that the world is so monstrous it takes monsters to run it? Slightly more than tantatively, we would suggest that it is because we have the domination of the few over the many. We have a world run in the interest of the tiny number of people who own it: and the rest of us need to be quelled in order that to protect those interests; and to do that on a regular basis would make a monster of anyone. We have the option of ridding the world of monsters by ending that monstrous system. That we choose to make that our sole aim is what marks us out as different from those who would befriend the monsters.
Socialist Party Election Blog : The blog by Socialists involved in Socialist Party campaigning in London Elections. For the main party website click Here
Showing posts with label London Mayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label London Mayor. Show all posts
Monday, February 13, 2012
The voice of our rivals
Interesting excepts of an interview with Ken Livingstone (the man who would-be-mayor-again) here. This is a fascinating insight into his politics:
Friday, April 18, 2008
The other end of the High Street...
This week's Private Eye (no. 1208) has an interesting peice on Ken Livingstone's associations with a different bunch of leftists - the Workers Revolutionary Party - one of the 57 flavours of Trotskyism, with a hint of added violence.
Sometimes referred to as a cult for their attempts to control members' private lives, and because of their slavish subordination to their leader Gerry Healy whom the Eye quotes Livingstone's biographer Andrew Hosken describing as: "a serial rapist and abuser of vulnerable young women, a violent drunken oaf, a celebrity-obsessed sycophant, a sectarian demagogyue, a vindictive bully, a political joke, a blatant anti-Semite...a possible accessory to torture and murder, a professional liar and a fraud as well as a stooge for sinister Middle East regimes."
If you think this is biased slandering, the prestigious Oxford Dictionary of National Biography actually gives Healy space, and says: "As the Workers' Revolutionary Party's financial position deteriorated in the early 1980s, Healy obtained funds from Libya, Iraq, the Gulf states, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, responding with political support. Opposition developed as the defeat of the 1984–5 miners' strike demoralized his organization. On 19 October 1985 Healy was expelled from the Workers' Revolutionary Party after revelations that he had sexually abused at least twenty-six women members."
Of course, to this day, Geoprge Galloway has demonstrated that money is still available from the Middle East, and Ken is capable of cosying up to despotic elements from that region to shore up his position today.
Of course, Socialists aren't interested in gossip or smearing opponents with a tarry brush and guilt by association, all that this proves is that all politicians have to swim with Sharks if they want to get ahead, and Ken has schmoozed with some particularly violent and nasty species.
Cuddly Ken is a smart player of the ruthless game of power politics, who draws support and personnel from authoritarian groups like the WRP and Socialist Action. The ultimate in entryism, and all to introduce some slightly lower bus fares. This is milk and water reformism, only without the milk.
(A prize to anyone who can guess the link between the article and its title in the comments.)
Sometimes referred to as a cult for their attempts to control members' private lives, and because of their slavish subordination to their leader Gerry Healy whom the Eye quotes Livingstone's biographer Andrew Hosken describing as: "a serial rapist and abuser of vulnerable young women, a violent drunken oaf, a celebrity-obsessed sycophant, a sectarian demagogyue, a vindictive bully, a political joke, a blatant anti-Semite...a possible accessory to torture and murder, a professional liar and a fraud as well as a stooge for sinister Middle East regimes."
If you think this is biased slandering, the prestigious Oxford Dictionary of National Biography actually gives Healy space, and says: "As the Workers' Revolutionary Party's financial position deteriorated in the early 1980s, Healy obtained funds from Libya, Iraq, the Gulf states, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, responding with political support. Opposition developed as the defeat of the 1984–5 miners' strike demoralized his organization. On 19 October 1985 Healy was expelled from the Workers' Revolutionary Party after revelations that he had sexually abused at least twenty-six women members."
Of course, to this day, Geoprge Galloway has demonstrated that money is still available from the Middle East, and Ken is capable of cosying up to despotic elements from that region to shore up his position today.
Of course, Socialists aren't interested in gossip or smearing opponents with a tarry brush and guilt by association, all that this proves is that all politicians have to swim with Sharks if they want to get ahead, and Ken has schmoozed with some particularly violent and nasty species.
Cuddly Ken is a smart player of the ruthless game of power politics, who draws support and personnel from authoritarian groups like the WRP and Socialist Action. The ultimate in entryism, and all to introduce some slightly lower bus fares. This is milk and water reformism, only without the milk.
(A prize to anyone who can guess the link between the article and its title in the comments.)
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Who needs a Mayor anyway?
On the same day as the elections for the Greater London Assembly, there'll be one for the Mayor of London too. But what is the Mayor but an elected Leader? And who needs a Leader? Only sheep do. Here is what we said in a leaflet we gave out during the referendum in May 1998 on whether or not London should have a directly elected Mayor. We wouldn't change a word of it today.
It is interesting to note what has happened to the professional politicians touted at the time, and mentioned in the leaflet, as possible candidates for the post. Labour leftwinger Tony Banks died a member of the House of Lords. Chris Patten is also now a noble Lord. But poor David Mellor is still a plain Mister and a DJ on Classic FM.
Who Needs a City Boss?
This referendum is a farce.
Full details of what is involved were only made public in March, so there has not been enough time for a proper debate.
There is no provision for equal time to be given to both the "yes" and the "no" sides. So the media will be free to give an unfair advantage to the government case for voting "yes", as they shamelessly did during the referendums in Scotland and Wales.
The question is rigged. If you want an elected assembly for London (as most people do since this is an elementary democratic measure) you can't vote for this without at the same time voting for an elected mayor who will have more power than the assembly. So you don't have the choice of saying "yes" to an elected assembly but "no" to an elected mayor.
Smokescreen
This neo-Tory Labour government talks a lot about democracy and democratic reform but in practice resorts to the same underhand tactics to get its way as do governments everywhere. It has linked the two questions so as to be sure to get its dubious proposal for a London City Boss through on the back of popular support for the restoration of an elected London council. In any event, its various proposals for "constitutional reform" are a smokescreen to disguise the fact that it cannot deliver, and no longer wants to deliver, on social reforms aimed at shifting wealth and power from the privileged few to working people.
We in the Socialist Party are well aware that in the end whatever arrangements are adopted for local government in London won't make much difference. This is because such arrangements are to be implemented within the context of the profit system, whose economic mechanisms require all levels of government, however structured, to trim their spending so as not to endanger profit levels whatever people may want - or vote for.
Travesty
Even so, an elected mayor is not a good idea. As the title of the government's Green Paper - New Leadership for London - proclaims, this is a proposal to elect a Leader for London. This Leader will not just have more power than the elected assembly but will be paid a fat cat salary (so as to remove, it is said, the temptation to be corrupt) and have the remit of managing London as if it were a capitalist enterprise. The whole proposal is a travesty of democracy.
Democracy means participating in the running of affairs, not following leaders.
The proposal for an elected mayor is a proposal to endorse what passes for democracy under capitalism: a choice not of alternative social systems or even policies but of rival leaders who are all packaging and no substance. Tony Banks, David Mellor, Chris Patten, who has the best smile? Who cares? But worse, it encourages people to think that some Leader can solve society's problems for them, whereas these problems can only be solved by people refusing to follow leaders and acting for themselves. The only kind of politics that is going to work is a do-it-yourself politics aimed at abolishing the profit-system.
Real Democracy
Real democracy is not possible under capitalism where a minority own and control the means of production and are therefore more equal than the rest of us and where the mechanisms of the profit system work to frustrate what people vote for from being carried out. The only way everybody can participate and have a genuinely equal say in how things are run is in a classless society based on common ownership.
Real Socialism
Such a socialist society will mean the end of production for profit and the coming of production geared directly to meeting people's needs. There will be no longer any barrier to ending problems like transport chaos, pollution and crumbling social services, which are unsolvable today because they arise out of the profit system. People will cooperate to carry out the necessary work of society and be able to take freely from the common store of wealth according to their needs. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" will be the guiding principle.
That's what socialism is. Common ownership, democratic control, production for use and free access according to need.
Nothing to do with the failed state-capitalist dictatorships that collapsed some years ago now in Russia and Eastern Europe (nor with the Trotskyist Militant Tendency which has dishonestly and illegitimately been using our name of "Socialist Party").
Vote "No" if you want to, but we shall be showing our contempt for the false choice being offered by writing "SOCIALISM" across the ballot paper.
It is interesting to note what has happened to the professional politicians touted at the time, and mentioned in the leaflet, as possible candidates for the post. Labour leftwinger Tony Banks died a member of the House of Lords. Chris Patten is also now a noble Lord. But poor David Mellor is still a plain Mister and a DJ on Classic FM.
Who Needs a City Boss?
This referendum is a farce.
Full details of what is involved were only made public in March, so there has not been enough time for a proper debate.
There is no provision for equal time to be given to both the "yes" and the "no" sides. So the media will be free to give an unfair advantage to the government case for voting "yes", as they shamelessly did during the referendums in Scotland and Wales.
The question is rigged. If you want an elected assembly for London (as most people do since this is an elementary democratic measure) you can't vote for this without at the same time voting for an elected mayor who will have more power than the assembly. So you don't have the choice of saying "yes" to an elected assembly but "no" to an elected mayor.
Smokescreen
This neo-Tory Labour government talks a lot about democracy and democratic reform but in practice resorts to the same underhand tactics to get its way as do governments everywhere. It has linked the two questions so as to be sure to get its dubious proposal for a London City Boss through on the back of popular support for the restoration of an elected London council. In any event, its various proposals for "constitutional reform" are a smokescreen to disguise the fact that it cannot deliver, and no longer wants to deliver, on social reforms aimed at shifting wealth and power from the privileged few to working people.
We in the Socialist Party are well aware that in the end whatever arrangements are adopted for local government in London won't make much difference. This is because such arrangements are to be implemented within the context of the profit system, whose economic mechanisms require all levels of government, however structured, to trim their spending so as not to endanger profit levels whatever people may want - or vote for.
Travesty
Even so, an elected mayor is not a good idea. As the title of the government's Green Paper - New Leadership for London - proclaims, this is a proposal to elect a Leader for London. This Leader will not just have more power than the elected assembly but will be paid a fat cat salary (so as to remove, it is said, the temptation to be corrupt) and have the remit of managing London as if it were a capitalist enterprise. The whole proposal is a travesty of democracy.
Democracy means participating in the running of affairs, not following leaders.
The proposal for an elected mayor is a proposal to endorse what passes for democracy under capitalism: a choice not of alternative social systems or even policies but of rival leaders who are all packaging and no substance. Tony Banks, David Mellor, Chris Patten, who has the best smile? Who cares? But worse, it encourages people to think that some Leader can solve society's problems for them, whereas these problems can only be solved by people refusing to follow leaders and acting for themselves. The only kind of politics that is going to work is a do-it-yourself politics aimed at abolishing the profit-system.
Real Democracy
Real democracy is not possible under capitalism where a minority own and control the means of production and are therefore more equal than the rest of us and where the mechanisms of the profit system work to frustrate what people vote for from being carried out. The only way everybody can participate and have a genuinely equal say in how things are run is in a classless society based on common ownership.
Real Socialism
Such a socialist society will mean the end of production for profit and the coming of production geared directly to meeting people's needs. There will be no longer any barrier to ending problems like transport chaos, pollution and crumbling social services, which are unsolvable today because they arise out of the profit system. People will cooperate to carry out the necessary work of society and be able to take freely from the common store of wealth according to their needs. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" will be the guiding principle.
That's what socialism is. Common ownership, democratic control, production for use and free access according to need.
Nothing to do with the failed state-capitalist dictatorships that collapsed some years ago now in Russia and Eastern Europe (nor with the Trotskyist Militant Tendency which has dishonestly and illegitimately been using our name of "Socialist Party").
Vote "No" if you want to, but we shall be showing our contempt for the false choice being offered by writing "SOCIALISM" across the ballot paper.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
The colour of money...
This piece could have been called "Booting Sian".
Anyway, I got a Green Party election address through the post last night. The usual fayre, but I read them anyway. I looked at this one. Blinked. Rubbed my eyes. Rubbed the page. Held it to the light,and in other ways checked it was real.
It was.
there on their election material was an advert.
It turned out, not one advert, but many adverts.
Cunning.
See, election law means you have to declare donatons, and spending limits (such as exist) mean that donations are controlled. But a payment at a commercial rate for an advert in a magazine that will reach millions of Londoners will not qualify as a donation.
Effectively, through advertising, the Greens have subsidised their election literature, whilst circumventing donation rules (though not spending limits). Quite how Green Party activists feel about being used in this commercial adventure is anyone's guess.
What's interesting, though, is how this emeshes the Green Party with the "green pound" industry and turns it into the political wing representing those economic interests. Especially as they promise to promote "small business" against the "multinationals" - I wonder which small businesses?
Just another capitalist party...greens mean business.
Anyway, I got a Green Party election address through the post last night. The usual fayre, but I read them anyway. I looked at this one. Blinked. Rubbed my eyes. Rubbed the page. Held it to the light,and in other ways checked it was real.
It was.
there on their election material was an advert.
It turned out, not one advert, but many adverts.
Cunning.
See, election law means you have to declare donatons, and spending limits (such as exist) mean that donations are controlled. But a payment at a commercial rate for an advert in a magazine that will reach millions of Londoners will not qualify as a donation.
Effectively, through advertising, the Greens have subsidised their election literature, whilst circumventing donation rules (though not spending limits). Quite how Green Party activists feel about being used in this commercial adventure is anyone's guess.
What's interesting, though, is how this emeshes the Green Party with the "green pound" industry and turns it into the political wing representing those economic interests. Especially as they promise to promote "small business" against the "multinationals" - I wonder which small businesses?
Just another capitalist party...greens mean business.
Friday, April 04, 2008
Booting Ken
The big problem with Ken is, he has no excuse. He can rattle off the ills of capitalism till the cows come home; but all he has to offer is realpolitik of today.
Look at it this way, on housing, he says 50,000 affordable new homes over the next three years. Boris says 50,000 affordable new homes by 2011. the only difference is where they want to put them, with Ken's 50% quota imposing new build on Tory suburbs. Obviously, things like that do matter; but questions like, "Is that all?" and "What do you mean by 'affordable' anyway? Affordable to whom? How?" do spring to mind.
For instance, he cites the figure that there are 60,000 households with over 90,000 children in them, in temporary accomodation. This is an appalling scandal, and just the tip of the iceburg. 2.7 %, he says, of the housing stock is empty, because private owners are keeping them so.
On this he says
Indeed, his accomodation with the market is his hallmark. I've heard him discussing that jobs in industry just aren't coming back, and so we have to live with a nservice economy based London.
The bottom line is, his strategy is fatally flawed, he admits time and again that the power doesn't lie with him, and that he is doing little things here and there (some of which I'll discuss in coming posts) here and now.
We think that isn't enough, and the urgency of the situation is such that we need to mobilise to fundamentally change the system of society, and remove the burden of responsibility from people like Ken to ourselves.
Finally, Ken's constant reference to "Ordinary Londoners" would make Danny, our candidate, spit. Doubtless he'll tell you all about that himself soon.
Look at it this way, on housing, he says 50,000 affordable new homes over the next three years. Boris says 50,000 affordable new homes by 2011. the only difference is where they want to put them, with Ken's 50% quota imposing new build on Tory suburbs. Obviously, things like that do matter; but questions like, "Is that all?" and "What do you mean by 'affordable' anyway? Affordable to whom? How?" do spring to mind.
For instance, he cites the figure that there are 60,000 households with over 90,000 children in them, in temporary accomodation. This is an appalling scandal, and just the tip of the iceburg. 2.7 %, he says, of the housing stock is empty, because private owners are keeping them so.
On this he says
Policy has to be sensible and related to the real world. Boris Johnson’s 1 per cent target for empty homes is completely unachievable in practice: it couldn’t be achieved without stopping the private sale market from functioning.Vile Trot that Ken is, he's protecting the housing market.
Indeed, his accomodation with the market is his hallmark. I've heard him discussing that jobs in industry just aren't coming back, and so we have to live with a nservice economy based London.
The bottom line is, his strategy is fatally flawed, he admits time and again that the power doesn't lie with him, and that he is doing little things here and there (some of which I'll discuss in coming posts) here and now.
We think that isn't enough, and the urgency of the situation is such that we need to mobilise to fundamentally change the system of society, and remove the burden of responsibility from people like Ken to ourselves.
Finally, Ken's constant reference to "Ordinary Londoners" would make Danny, our candidate, spit. Doubtless he'll tell you all about that himself soon.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Booting Boris
An anonymous commentator says of the last post:
I've now looked in vain for his epic housing manifesto online at his site, and can't find it, after a good deal of searching. Now, maybe I'm a eejit, or maybe he's just not being very forthright about putting his policies forward.
But, lets look at what specifics I could find:
Release GLA-owned land and £130 million from the Regional Housing Pot to launch a new 'FirstSteps Housing Scheme', which will be open to first-time buyers frozen out of Government schemes
Work with the boroughs to build 50,000 more affordable homes by 2011
Invest £60 million from the Regional Housing Pot to start renovating the capital's 84,205 empty properties to help low-income Londoners off waiting
lists
Incentivise the boroughs to release dormant housing to those stuck in bed and breakfast accommodation, by returning the Mayor's precept to them
These are all driven by free market privatising dogma - as if lowering the precept (tax cuts! tax cuts! screameth the Dalek) is not itself going to be used by boroughs (esp. Liberal and Tory boroughs) to cut their own taxes (tax cuts! tax cuts! screameth the Dalek), even if strings are attached, money is fungible, and the boroughs would just reallocate the budgets elsewhere. Likewise, "releasing GLA land" is just more state shrinking.
As for the pittances outlined above, that renovation scheme amounts to about £700 per property, might do for a lick of paint, I suppose.
Like I said, Johnson is going to actively and as a matter of principle do nothing but channel the interests of the wealthy. The rest is bluster, blather and distraction from the reality of an exploited working class whose needs and interests always come in second place to the interests of profit and capital. A beautiful home is worthless if you can't afford to buy it.
Tired
Old
Tory
Ideas
Sorry I must disagree. You're clearly well out of your depth.Now, I did actually check out Boris' policy pages before posting (the clue to that, anonymous, was that I linked to his webpage), and all I saw on housing was a vague commitment to work in partnership with councils to raise more affordable homes (note his objection to a quota, what that means is Tory suburban strongholds not wanting to develop affordable housing on their patch, which is what the current situation does). Likewise his promise to protect "historic views".
Boris has come up with a range of policy proposals - I advise you to look at his policies on www.backboris.com/policy.
Manifesto's galore (just a small one for you, Ken's Housing Manifesto was 11 pages long, Paddick's 1 page long...Boris' 38 pages). He's the only candidate with new ideas and the only one capable of leading this city at a time where corruption in City Hall is rife.
I've now looked in vain for his epic housing manifesto online at his site, and can't find it, after a good deal of searching. Now, maybe I'm a eejit, or maybe he's just not being very forthright about putting his policies forward.
But, lets look at what specifics I could find:
lists
These are all driven by free market privatising dogma - as if lowering the precept (tax cuts! tax cuts! screameth the Dalek) is not itself going to be used by boroughs (esp. Liberal and Tory boroughs) to cut their own taxes (tax cuts! tax cuts! screameth the Dalek), even if strings are attached, money is fungible, and the boroughs would just reallocate the budgets elsewhere. Likewise, "releasing GLA land" is just more state shrinking.
As for the pittances outlined above, that renovation scheme amounts to about £700 per property, might do for a lick of paint, I suppose.
Like I said, Johnson is going to actively and as a matter of principle do nothing but channel the interests of the wealthy. The rest is bluster, blather and distraction from the reality of an exploited working class whose needs and interests always come in second place to the interests of profit and capital. A beautiful home is worthless if you can't afford to buy it.
Tired
Old
Tory
Ideas
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
The whited sepulchre
By special request, it's time to put the boot into Boris Johnson.
Essentially, I agree with Dave Osler, the chief characteristic of this campaign is the absence of policy, apart from a few populist gripes Johnson doesn't really say anything.
Of course, over the years he has said plenty, and is well known to be a hard Thatcherite and opponent of so-called "political correctness." And that is just it, it's known for those who care that he will veer to the wild right, and act in a manner to please the saloon bar bores of which he is one in extremis.
That's why he is policy light, because he is not a typical managerial machine politician, but a walking cipher for a certain Tory gut reflex - hence the "seat of your pants" approach he is trying to downplay.
The fact is, that his bluster plus his Chatshow Boris plus a few populist measures (lets plant some trees, do away with Bendy buses, etc.) might just sneak him in. Maybe the plan is to give him a competent team to delegate to like he did while he edited the Spectator; but, just as likely, he will blunder and bluster around like a loose cannon.
The real secret will be that he doesn't believe in doing anything, he will be sabbotaging the local administration so that his Tory mates, the city capitalists and the saloon bar bores can carry on without someone even having the temerity to try an alleviate the ills of capitalism.
Now, socialists are clear that the attempt to run capitalism against capitalist interests is doomed to failure; but Boris, behind the buffoonish facade represents capitalism's uncaring heart of darkness. It's easy to laugh at Boris the joke, but what he stands for, capitalism and elitism without even the pretence of caring, is no joke.
Whilst the wild ideologues have dreamed of such unrestraint, in practice, in power, they're usually kept in check by reality. Anarcho-capitalist wingnuts usually do not get within sniffing distance of power. Even Thatcher barely managed to reduce the size of the state, as she found after years of fruitless turmoil. Sadly, Boris' reality check would be unpleasant for us all.
Essentially, I agree with Dave Osler, the chief characteristic of this campaign is the absence of policy, apart from a few populist gripes Johnson doesn't really say anything.
Of course, over the years he has said plenty, and is well known to be a hard Thatcherite and opponent of so-called "political correctness." And that is just it, it's known for those who care that he will veer to the wild right, and act in a manner to please the saloon bar bores of which he is one in extremis.
That's why he is policy light, because he is not a typical managerial machine politician, but a walking cipher for a certain Tory gut reflex - hence the "seat of your pants" approach he is trying to downplay.
The fact is, that his bluster plus his Chatshow Boris plus a few populist measures (lets plant some trees, do away with Bendy buses, etc.) might just sneak him in. Maybe the plan is to give him a competent team to delegate to like he did while he edited the Spectator; but, just as likely, he will blunder and bluster around like a loose cannon.
The real secret will be that he doesn't believe in doing anything, he will be sabbotaging the local administration so that his Tory mates, the city capitalists and the saloon bar bores can carry on without someone even having the temerity to try an alleviate the ills of capitalism.
Now, socialists are clear that the attempt to run capitalism against capitalist interests is doomed to failure; but Boris, behind the buffoonish facade represents capitalism's uncaring heart of darkness. It's easy to laugh at Boris the joke, but what he stands for, capitalism and elitism without even the pretence of caring, is no joke.
Whilst the wild ideologues have dreamed of such unrestraint, in practice, in power, they're usually kept in check by reality. Anarcho-capitalist wingnuts usually do not get within sniffing distance of power. Even Thatcher barely managed to reduce the size of the state, as she found after years of fruitless turmoil. Sadly, Boris' reality check would be unpleasant for us all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)